Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

12:36:00

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way that changes in the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. The state pension is the foundation for a secure retirement. That is why this Government are committed to the pensions triple lock, which will increase the new state pension by more than £470 a year from this April and deliver an additional £31 billion of spending over the course of this Parliament, and it is why Governments of all colours have a responsibility to ensure that changes to the state pension age are properly communicated so that people can plan for their retirement. Before I turn to the Government’s response to the ombudsman’s report, I want to be clear about what this report investigated, and what it did not. The report is not an investigation into the actual decision to increase the state pension age for women in 1995 or to accelerate that increase in 2011—a decision that the then Conservative Chancellor George Osborne said “probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”. That comment understandably angered many women and sparked the original Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. The ombudsman is clear that policy decisions to increase the state pension age in 1995 and since were taken by Parliament and considered lawful by the courts. This investigation was about how changes in the state pension age were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the impact this may have had on the ability of women born in the 1950s to plan for their retirement. I know that this is an issue of huge concern to many women that has spanned multiple Parliaments. Like so many other problems that we have inherited from the Conservatives, this is something that the previous Government should have dealt with. Instead, they kicked the can down the road and left us to pick up the pieces, but today we deal with it head-on. The Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and I have given the ombudsman’s report serious consideration and looked in detail at the findings, and at information and advice provided by the Department that was not available to us before coming into Government. The then ombudsman looked at six cases. He found that the Department provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004, including through leaflets and pensions education campaigns and on its website. However, decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s. The ombudsman says that these delays did not result in the women suffering direct financial loss but that they were maladministration. We accept that the 28-month delay in sending out letters was maladministration, and on behalf of the Government, I apologise. This Government are determined to learn all the lessons from what went wrong, and I will say more about that in a moment. We also agree that the women suffered no direct financial loss because of the maladministration. However, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy, and I want to spell out why. First, the report does not properly take into account research showing that there was actually considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. It references research from 2004 showing that 43% of women aged over 16 were aware of their state pension age, but it does not sufficiently recognise evidence from the same research that 73% of women aged 45 to 54—the very group that covers women born in the 1950s—were aware that the state pension age was increasing, or research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing. Secondly, the report says that if letters had been sent out earlier, it would have affected what women knew about the state pension age. However, we do not agree that sending letters earlier would have had the impact that the ombudsman says. Research given to the ombudsman shows that only around a quarter of people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remember receiving them or reading them, so we cannot accept that, in the great majority of cases, sending a letter earlier would have affected whether women knew that their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunity to make informed decisions. These two facts—that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says—as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman’s report. The ombudsman says that, as a matter of principle, redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact. However, the report itself acknowledges that assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s would have a significant cost and administrative burden. It has taken the ombudsman nearly six years to investigate the circumstances of six sample complaints. For the DWP to set up a scheme and invite 3.5 million women to set out their detailed personal circumstances would take thousands of staff years to process. Even if there were a scheme in which women could self-certify that they were not aware of changes to their state pension age and that they had suffered as a result, it would be impossible to verify the information provided. The alternative put forward in the report is a flat-rate compensation scheme at level 4 of the ombudsman’s scale of injustice. This would provide £1,000 to £2,950 per person, at a total cost of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion. Given that the vast majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, 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, not least when the previous Government failed to set aside a single penny for any compensation scheme and left us a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. This has been an extremely difficult decision to take, but we believe it is the right course of action, and we are determined to learn all the lessons to ensure that this type of maladministration never happens again. First, we want to work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan out of the report, so that every and all lessons are learned. Secondly, we are committed to setting clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age, so that people can properly plan for their retirement. Thirdly, I have tasked officials to develop a strategy for effective, timely and modern communication on the state pension that uses the most up-to-date methods, building on changes that have already been made, such as the online “check your state pension” service that gives a personal forecast of a person’s state pension, including when they can take it, because one size rarely fits all. As I said, we have not taken this decision lightly, but we believe it is the right decision because the great majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, because sending letters earlier would not have made a difference for most, and because the proposed compensation scheme is not fair or value for taxpayers’ money. I know there are women born in the 1950s who want and deserve a better life. They have worked hard in paid jobs and in bringing up their families. Many are struggling financially with the cost of living and fewer savings to fall back on. They worry about their health and how their children and grandchildren will get on. To those women I say: this Government will protect the pensions triple lock, so your state pension will increase by up to £1,900 a year by the end of this Parliament; we will drive down waiting lists, so you get the treatment you need, with an extra £22 billion of funding for the NHS this year and next; and we will deliver the jobs, homes and opportunities your families need to build a better life. I know that many 1950s-born women will be disappointed about this specific decision, but we believe it is the right decision and the fair decision. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

12:45:00

I thank the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for advance sight of her statement, and I thank the ombudsman and his team for their work on this important matter. In March this year, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published its final report into the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. The report took over five years to produce and reflects the complexity of the issue. It spans a 30-year period across different Governments, dating back to Parliament’s decision in 1995 for the state pension age for men and women to be equalised, in a long-overdue move towards gender equality. As the chief executive of the ombudsman set out, the Department for Work and Pensions fully co-operated with the ombudsman through its investigation and provided thousands of pages of detailed evidence to support it. It is because we took the work of the ombudsman so seriously that it was right for the Government to fully and properly consider the findings, and we were committed to working with Parliament to provide an appropriate and swift response. However, as the House will know, the general election was called less than two months later. Given that it has taken Labour five months since the general election to provide its findings, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that there was insufficient time to take a considered and fair decision between the publication of the report and the election. I am glad that the Secretary of State has picked this issue up since coming into office and has brought her statement to the House today. I will be considering it in more detail in the days and weeks to come, as well as the basis on which she has reached her conclusion. I am sure that the Government’s statement today will be a huge disappointment to WASPI women, and I recognise the strength of feeling about the issue. As a constituency MP, I have met WASPI women who live in Faversham and Mid Kent and heard their personal stories. No doubt campaigners will note the Government’s apology for the decisions made between 2005 and 2007 that led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters, which the ombudsman identified as “maladministration”. But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances. The country’s financial position now is a result of their political choices. They should not try to dodge responsibility by suggesting to WASPI women that, if times were different, they might have come to a different conclusion. Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just. That brings me to some questions. Given the announcement that they will not be providing financial compensation, will the Government put forward any other non-financial form of remedy for the women affected? Will the Secretary of State be involving the WASPI campaigners in the action plan she has referred to and what is the timeline for that? The Secretary of State claimed that pensioners are better off under Labour, but let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who introduced and protected the triple lock, which has seen the state pension increase by £3,700 since 2010, and there are now 200,000 fewer pensioners living in absolute poverty. Does the right hon. Lady know how many women affected by her decision are on pension credit? Labour’s own impact assessment shows that its decision to scrap the winter fuel payment will see 5.2 million women lose out. How many of those hit by those cuts to the winter fuel payment are also affected by today’s announcement? Finally, given that the Government have dismissed the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, will the Secretary of State set out what implications she sees for the future of the ombudsman?

I welcome the overall tone of the hon. Lady’s comments. I am glad that she is finally considering her party’s response to the ombudsman’s report, and I am sure that the whole House looks forward to its detailed response to the findings and recommendations, which were not provided when the Conservatives were in Government. I am sorry that the hon. Lady still fails to take responsibility for the state of the public finances. We have taken full responsibility for that and have taken difficult decisions on the public finances. We have also taken this very difficult decision in response to the ombudsman’s report and have provided that to the House as quickly as we have been able, given the huge amount of information we have had to go through. The hon. Lady asks about next steps. We have three clear things that we intend to do. We will produce a detailed action plan. We want to work with the ombudsman on that so that we can ensure that the delay, the maladministration and the 28-month delay in sending out notifications never happens again, and I am perfectly happy to consider working with the women to make sure we get that right. It is extremely important that, wherever possible, we provide personalised, tailored information. Pensions are a hugely complicated area, and we want people to be empowered with that information and knowledge. We have to do it in all sorts of different formats, because it is individual to the person, and we need to get that right in future. The hon. Lady also mentioned pension credit and the winter fuel payment. I will say to her, as I did yesterday, that we have seen a 145% increase in the number of claims for pension credit since we launched our campaign. More than 42,000 more people are claiming pension credit now. We want to deal with yet another thing the Conservative Government left us with, which was 880,000 pensioners not getting the pension credit or the winter fuel payment they are entitled to. These are difficult decisions. We are a responsible Government and we face up to our responsibilities. I look forward to Members on the Conservative Benches finally doing the same.

This is clearly not a decision that the Secretary of State has taken lightly, and an apology on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions is long overdue, but let us make no mistake: the responsibility for this lies squarely with the Conservative party, which oversaw the maladministration and kicked the can down the road yet again, for us to clear up the mess. That must be put right. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that a serious case like this will not occur again, and that this Government will continue to do everything we can to support pensioners going forward?

I can assure my hon. Friend’s constituents in Clwyd North that we want to learn all the lessons from the maladministration that we accept took place. We have to get people timely, effective and personal communication, and not just about their state pension age but about all aspects of pensions, so that they can properly plan for their retirement. The Pensions Minister and I will go through that with a fine-toothed comb to do everything possible to make sure it does not happen again.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

First, and for the record, the Liberal Democrats played a significant part in government in introducing the triple lock for our pensioners—it is important that people acknowledge that. The Government’s decision is nothing short of a betrayal of WASPI women. I know that, as in my constituency of Torbay, across the United Kingdom there will be millions of women who are shocked and horrified at that decision. That the Government have inherited an awful state for our economy is no excuse. That the women are being hit by the mistakes of the Tories and that the Labour Government are now using that as a shield is utterly wrong-headed. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the decision? The matter went to the ombudsman for its considered review, and the Liberal Democrats have long supported the ombudsman’s findings. I am shocked that the Government are taking a pick-and-mix approach to those findings, and we therefore ask the Secretary of State to seriously reconsider the decision.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who I know was not in the House at the time, that the decision to accelerate the increase in the state pension age in 2011 was taken by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government. It was that which angered and annoyed many women and led to the WASPI campaign. We accept that there was a 28-month delay in sending out letters and we apologise for that, but we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy. We do not believe that the letters would have had an impact on most, as the ombudsman said, and when 90% of women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot accept that that flat rate of payment of up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. I know that will disappoint some women born in the 1950s, but we believe it is the right and fair decision.

I share the Secretary of State’s concern about the black hole that was left. This will have been a difficult decision for her to make and bring to the House today. However, I think about the many people across all our constituencies who have contacted us about the matter, including my constituent Valerie, who wrote to me and said: “We simply cannot afford to wait any longer for justice given that more than 20,000 WASPI women have tragically died since the ombudsman’s findings were published more than 6 months ago.” I know that Valerie and many others in my constituency will be very disappointed. The Secretary of State says that she accepts the maladministration. Does that not then mean accountability?

We do indeed take responsibility for the maladministration between 2004 and 2007 and a 28-month delay in sending the letters out. I want to reiterate to my hon. Friend and to the House that this is not a decision about the increase in the state pension age, which so many women were aggrieved about; it is about how that was communicated. We accept that those letters should have gone out earlier, but even if we had sent those, it would not have made a difference for most. When 90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not think that the proposed compensation scheme is fair or proportionate. That is why we have taken this extremely difficult decision.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report says what many WASPI women across my constituency have been saying for years, which is that between 2005 and 2007 the DWP and the last Labour Government let them down. I am therefore grateful to the Secretary of State for her apology, but that will come as cold comfort to those who are in this situation in the face of no financial compensation. If I am right in what I hear, she says mitigation is too complicated and that it is someone else’s fault. That will be no comfort to those impacted. What conversations does the Secretary of State plan to have with the WASPI women to see what more support can be put in place for those most impacted?

I met the WASPI campaign in opposition when I was appointed shadow Work and Pensions Minister. The Minister for Pensions was the first of her kind to meet the WASPI campaign for eight years, and she is happy to meet them again. I say to the hon. Lady, who feels very deeply about the issue, that we will learn all the lessons from what went wrong with the delay in sending the letters out, but we do not agree that even if we had done that, they would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. This is not about the matter being too complicated; we do not believe that, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.

The all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality has found that huge numbers of women have suffered significant financial hardship; many have even lost their homes. The Secretary of State must realise that her apology is welcome, but that it is not enough for them. Frankly, it is unprecedented for a Government to agree with the findings of an ombudsman on the one hand, but, on the other, to refuse to initiate redress when clear injustice has occurred. What will the Secretary of State say to reassure those women who have lost everything?

I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises, but I reiterate the findings from the ombudsman’s report that there was no direct financial loss. We agree that those letters should have been sent out earlier. We will learn all the lessons needed to put that right. I am more than happy to discuss precisely how we will do that with the all-party parliamentary group, so that that kind of maladministration of sending out letters never happens again.

Last month, the word “WASPI” made it into the Collins English Dictionary, which is a credit to the campaigners behind it. Does the Secretary of State agree that she has gone through the ombudsman’s report with, to use her own words, a fine-toothed comb, in order to get the answer that she always wanted to find in the first place?

No, I do not agree with that. It was only when we got into government that we were able to see all the information and advice provided by the Department. I did not go into it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests; that is not correct. This report is not about the policy decision and women against state pension age increases. That decision was taken in 1995, agreed to by subsequent Parliaments and deemed lawful by the courts in 2020. The ombudsman’s report is not about the state pension age increases; it is about how they were communicated. I take responsibility for that and will make sure that we do everything possible to put it right.

This is undoubtedly a tough choice. It is welcome that the Government will seek to learn the lessons and develop a new strategy for clear and timely comms. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House not only that the strategy will be comprehensive, but that those with accessibility requirements are properly informed of any changes?

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which is that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work—even if it ever did. We need to provide tailored information in an accessible way—in an easily understood and available format. We will work extremely closely with all the necessary groups to develop that information, and, crucially, give sufficient notice. The ombudsman’s report deals with the decisions made between 2004 and 2007, but what greatly concerned many women and led to the original WASPI campaign was the decision in 2011 to accelerate and bring forward increases in the state pension age. Therefore, that other commitment to give sufficient and timely notice so that people can properly plan for their retirement is extremely important.

The Secretary of State says in her statement: “Research given to the ombudsman shows only around a quarter of people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remember receiving and reading them.” I would like to know the terms of that research. Did it, for example, say on the envelope, “Important financial information affecting your pension”? If something like that were on an envelope, I think that there would be a very different response rate. Given that she is having trouble accepting that people look at serious letters that really affect them, perhaps the Chancellor could use some of her ability to get these messages across, as was so successful in the case of advising pensioners that they would be losing the winter fuel allowance.

I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about this research and its findings, which are robust. I reflect on the fact that three of the sample cases that the ombudsman looked into had received a letter, but I am more than happy to provide him with the details of that research.

In the framing of my question to the Secretary of State, I first wish to say that I am appalled by this announcement. I have campaigned with WASPI women, as have many parliamentary colleagues, and this is an incredible let down for them. In my opinion, WASPI women certainly do not need words of disappointment and hollow statements. What they need is justice. Does the Secretary of State not agree with that?

I believe that this is a difficult decision, but the right and fair one. We accept that there has been maladministration. Once the Department had reached its decision, those letters should have been sent out. For the reasons that I have explained, we do not accept the ombudsman’s approach to injustice, remedy or compensation. We have to take difficult decisions in government, but this is about what I think is right and fair. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter in more detail if he so wishes.

It is a gross understatement for the Secretary of State to say that 1950s women will be disappointed, especially given that this new Government are setting a precedent by ignoring an independent resolution process. I signpost constituents to the ombudsman on a regular basis; we all do. It is one of the ways that we hold the Government and Government bodies to account, and it is a core part of our democracy. Can the Secretary of State explain how we can have faith in that process if the Government choose to ignore the ombudsman’s findings? Given the fact that, as a constituent MP, the Secretary of State herself supported the WASPI campaign, can she advise whether the £22 billion black hole has had any consequence on her decision making?

We did campaign against the acceleration of changes to the state pension age brought forward by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government, but that is not what this decision is about. The decision on the state pension age has already been taken. I do value the ombudsman’s role; I refer many cases myself. We accept his findings on maladministration, but we do not accept his view on injustice. None the less, the ombudsman continues to have an important role to play for many constituency MPs, and I for one will continue to refer cases to the ombudsman, as I always have done.

The Government are right to have apologised to WASPI women today and my right hon. Friend is also right to have acknowledged the significant disappointment that will be felt. What is important is that this Labour Government are acting to boost pension pots across the country. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that, through the measures the Government are taking, we not only protect pension pots but actually enhance them, so that pensioners are better off?

The pension schemes Bill will do precisely that. One of the really important things that we want to do is to consolidate smaller pension pots, so that they deliver better value and better results for those in retirement. That is exactly what that Bill will do. We want to see the very best for pensioners and also the very best for UK plc, which is why our pensions reforms are so important. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for pensions will be delivering on that in the months and years ahead.

Anas Sarwar said that, under his leadership, WASPI women will finally receive the justice they deserve. Is the justice they deserve being paid less than their male counterparts throughout their career? Is the justice they deserve being sacked or forced to resign from their jobs when they had children? Is the justice they deserve the removal of the winter fuel payment? Why are the Labour Government absolutely determined to take every opportunity to screw over 1950s-born women?

I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record on helping the lowest-paid women pensioners and of the improvements that we delivered. This is not about that issue; this is about the way that the state pension age was communicated. If the hon. Lady wants a different approach, the SNP Government in Scotland can provide that by using the £4.9 billion settlement—the biggest ever in the history of devolution—that we have provided.

This will be a sad moment for the 4,000 women in Stoke-on-Trent Central who I have campaigned alongside for justice and a fair transition. I understand the Secretary of State’s need to balance the budget, given what was left by the previous Government, but is this a case of no compensation now because of the economic circumstances that we find ourselves in, or is it no compensation ever? If we find ourselves in the future in a much better economic state, will she consider re-addressing this issue and seeing what compensation might be available for the women who were affected?

We do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or compensation. We do not believe that sending those letters earlier, even though we should have done, would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. We do not believe that, given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. However, we will learn lessons from that maladministration to ensure that it never happens again.

Every single one of us in this House relies on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to ensure that our constituents get redress. When the PHSO made a similar judgment against Equitable Life, the Government came forward with a compensation programme. Will the Secretary of State commit to having a binding vote in this House on the decision, so that the House can decide whether what the Government are proposing is justice for WASPI women? I certainly do not believe that it is.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman could have encouraged his party to do a compensation scheme when he was in government. The reason the ombudsman actually referred the report to Parliament was because he did not believe the last Government when they were running the Department for Work and Pensions would deal with it properly. This Government take our responsibility seriously, and that is why we have come to Parliament today to make this difficult decision.

A Conservative Member said to me this morning that being the Secretary of State for the DWP is probably the hardest job in Government, and I think today we can really see that. I pay tribute to the WASPI women in my constituency, and in particular Gina, who emails me regularly about this issue. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give WASPI women such as Gina that we will do everything we can to support them and to ensure that issues like this do not happen again?

As I said in my statement, I understand that many women born in the 1950s face a real struggle and, on this specific decision, they may well be disappointed, but our commitment to pensioners and to the pensions triple lock will deliver an extra £30 billion into the basic state pension over this Parliament. Our investment in the NHS, about which many 1950s-born women are desperately worried, of £22 billion this year and next, shows our commitment to the issues that matter to those women. As I say, they may be disappointed and, indeed, angry about the decision, but we believe that it is the fair and right decision. However, I would be more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend in further detail so that he can pass on comments from WASPI women in his constituency.

I speak on behalf of Helen from my home town of Bampton and the 5,500 WASPI women in my constituency. They are not disappointed; they are devastated, as am I because—mistakenly, as it turned out—I believed that this Labour Government, who were supported by millions of women across this country who rightly turned their backs on the Conservatives, had some probity and decency. Does the Secretary of State agree that it turns out that they have neither?

No.

Many former Ministers and current shadow Ministers have made clear that they do not support a compensation scheme, so is this not just another example of this Labour Government having to take the difficult but necessary decisions that those Members ran away from?

It is true this was a long-running issue, spanning multiple Parliaments, that was delivered to the last Government, and we have dealt with it. We have dealt with it seriously, but also as quickly as we can. We take our responsibilities seriously. It is a difficult decision, but I believe it is the right and fair one.

How long will we have this Government giving the excuse that they cannot do things because the last lot did not do them? Will the Secretary of State remember that she is now in government? When she was in opposition, she and other members of her party campaigned for WASPI women. The facts have not changed: administratively, mistakes were made and, financially, there is still an impact; and now the ombudsman has found in favour. She cannot hide behind saying that “We have no money”. We just had the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in questions boasting that he is bunging billions of pounds to power companies, yet we cannot honour the commitments made to people who were wrongly treated in the pensions system.

I hate to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say it was only about there being no money. I said it was because we do not agree that if we had sent those letters earlier, it would have made the difference that he says, and because, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe a flat rate is pertinent. I say this to him: we do take the public finances seriously. We have to make difficult decisions, and we cannot spend more than we have. We will continue with that approach, but based on our values. We do not believe that what has been set out is the right or fair way forward. I have come to the House honestly to make that decision plain, but I would be happy to talk to him in more detail if he would like.

The Secretary of State says the report is about the way this was communicated to those 1950s-born women and that earlier letters would not have made a difference, but they would have made a difference to individuals’ financial planning, their retirement dates, the notice they gave to their jobs, and the wider family arrangements and commitments they had made. There have undoubtedly been losses for those 1950s-born women. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) just gave the Government an opportunity to reconsider that at some point in the future. Is she sure that she will not take that offer?

I know my hon. Friend cares passionately about this issue and many other issues related to pensioners. I repeat what I said in my statement and, indeed, what the ombudsman said, which is there was no direct financial loss for the women. This is not about the increase in the state pension age; it is about how it was communicated. The research shows that only one in four people who get an unsolicited letter remember receiving or reading it, so sending those letters out earlier would not have made the difference. We cannot justify a flat-rate compensation scheme or, indeed, an individualised compensation scheme on that basis.

When the Secretary of State was in opposition, she said she was a “long-standing supporter” of WASPI women. Given that, what would she say to the WASPI women in my constituency, the 3,300 in her constituency and those across the country who will be disappointed at her rejection of any compensation, even if not at the level the ombudsman recommended?

My party opposed the Conservatives’ decision to accelerate increases in the state pension age, but that is not what the report is about. It is about how those changes were communicated and, at the risk of repeating myself, that is why we have taken this decision.

It is no small thing for a Secretary of State to stand up with the sincerity that my right hon. Friend has and to offer an apology on behalf of the Government and accept maladministration, and I know she takes that responsibility seriously. I understand her position regarding the 90% of women who knew the pension age was going to change, but among the 10% who did not realise, people made individual decisions about their financial circumstances. Will she say more about why she did not feel that it was possible to put an individualised compensation scheme in place for that 10%?

My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question. The difficulty is we estimate that going through 3.5 million women to find out which ones knew about their state pension age increasing and would have made different decisions on that basis would take 10 times the number of staff who administer the state pension for 12 million people, and many years. We do not think that is an affordable or possible programme. The ombudsman himself goes through that point, and that is why he proposes a flat rate, but I have already said why we think that is not justified when 90% of those women knew their state pension age was increasing.

One of the very first constituents who came to me after I was elected in 2017 was Helen, whose decision on her financial future was taken just before she received the letter, which came late—so it did have an impact on her. It also had an impact on the thousands of WASPI women in my constituency who have contacted me over the past seven and a half years. How does the Secretary of State think that any pensioner in this country, regardless of the triple lock, which was the creation of the Liberal Democrats with the Conservatives, can have faith in a Government who have taken away their winter fuel allowance and now do not respect the injustice done to them in not compensating the WASPI women?

Our commitment to the pension triple lock, which will deliver an increase of £470 in the new state pension from this April and up to £1,900 extra over the course of this Parliament, backed by over £30 billion of investment, is a serious investment in pensioners. We believe that the basic state pension is the foundation for security in retirement. If the Liberal Democrats want to come up with a costed proposal to do what the ombudsman says, they are perfectly at liberty to do so, although we think that that is the wrong approach.

As my right hon. Friend has noted, many women will be disappointed by this decision—including women I have met in Central Ayrshire when campaigning, since I have been an MP, and at constituency surgeries as recently as Friday—even though they know that we are cleaning up 14 years of Tory mess, dither and delay and failure. Caring responsibilities often fall on women, and an awful lot of 1950s women have spoken about the financial, emotional and physical pressures that they face in caring for a loved one. Will my right hon. Friend set out how the Government plan to support carers over the coming months and years?

I have been a lifelong champion of family carers, which is why I have launched an independent review of the overpayment of carers allowance, led by Liz Sayce, and why the Government have introduced the biggest ever increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance. That will make a huge difference in enabling those who look after the people they love to work at the same time. I understand that many women born in the 1950s will be disappointed, but, for all the reasons I have set out, we think this is the fair and right approach. However, we will learn lessons from the maladministration—the delay and the failure to send out letters for 28 months—to ensure that it never happens again.

This is a very harsh statement. It admits wrongdoing but offers a bitter dose of nothing to a generation of women who already faced prejudices and disadvantages in their careers and were caught out by Government decisions. If the Secretary of State will not reconsider her decision despite being urged to do so by Members on both sides of the House, what else will she do to ensure that those women can enjoy levels of security in retirement closer to equal those of their male counterparts?

The hon. Lady raises a valid point about the state pension itself and the difficulties for women who have taken time out to look after children. We took that seriously when we were last in government, and we still do now, because we want to ensure that there is proper equality for those women. The report and this decision are not about the acceleration in the increase to the state pension age, which was at the heart of why so many women felt angry about what happened. We will ensure that we give proper notice so that people can plan for their retirement, we will support women through the pension triple lock and all the investment that we are putting into the NHS, and we will ensure that equality for women is at the heart of our proposals for pensions.

WASPI women in my constituency will have listened to the statement with some difficulty, as I know my right hon. Friend has accepted, but they will also have heard her offer a heartfelt from the Dispatch Box, which is quite right. Will she assure them that the maladministration that underlined this case will never happen again, and that this injustice will not be repeated by this or any other Government?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is most important, first, that in future people have proper notice of any changes to the state pension age so that they can properly plan for their retirement, which is not what happened in 2011 under the previous Government; secondly, that we ensure that people get effective, timely and personalised information about their state pension and, I would argue, about their second pensions; and thirdly, that we reach people in many different ways, not just by sending letters, precisely because we know that the great majority of people who get unsolicited letters do not remember getting them or reading some or any of them. That is why we must ensure that our communication strategy is much more personalised, timely and effective.

At a time when public confidence in politicians is so low, has the Secretary of State made an assessment of whether overruling the ombudsman’s decision at a stroke will undermine trust in that process?

I hope that I have been direct, straightforward and honest about why we agree with the finding of maladministration but not with the approach in other areas. People will make their judgment, but I would just say that I believe in facing up to responsibilities, looking at the facts, going through the detail and putting forward a response that is fair and proportionate, and that is what I believe the Government have done today.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for the apology of behalf of the Government. As she has acknowledged, many of the brave and courageous WASPI women in my constituency will feel bitterly disappointed by this decision. Does she agree that the cornerstone of pensioner finances is this Government’s commitment to the triple lock? That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Government’s breaking of the triple lock in 2022, which cost many pensioners in my constituency hundreds of pounds a year.

My hon. Friend states the fact that the Conservatives broke the triple lock two years ago. Indeed, their shadow Chancellor says that it is unsustainable. I am sure that his constituents will hear those comments loud and clear.

Today’s announcement is a huge blow to 1950s-born women affected by state pension changes, who have campaigned tirelessly for justice and accountability, including on the maladministration that the Secretary of State has admitted took place. She promised jobs, homes and opportunities in her statement, but given that one affected woman dies every 13 minutes, can she explain exactly how that will benefit 1950s-born retired women?

I know that a number of women expected to be able to retire earlier than they could, but the decision to increase the state pension age has been taken. It was taken by Parliament, agreed by subsequent Parliaments, and deemed legal by the courts in 2020—that issue is settled. This is about the communication of it. As I say, we have accepted the finding of maladministration, but we do not accept the approach to injustice or compensation for all the reasons that I have set out. The Government are taking difficult decisions so that we can invest in the pension triple lock and the NHS, build homes, and get people the jobs that they need—many 1950s-born women are very concerned about those things, not just for themselves but for their families. On this specific issue, I know that many people will be disappointed and angry, but we believe that it is the right and fair decision for all the reasons that I have set out.

WASPI women across the UK have been let down time and again, including by this statement. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced £20 billion of additional borrowing this year, and an average of £32 billion over the next five years. How does the Secretary of State expect WASPI women to believe that the Government cannot afford a single penny of compensation?

Given that sending out letters earlier, which we should have done, would not have made the difference that the ombudsman claims it would, and given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that a compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.

When it was politically convenient to do so, the Secretary of State chose to back and support WASPI women. Today, she chooses to betray them. The public voted for change, but instead they have been given more of the same—shame on you. If she is so confident in her position, why does she not let us all decide through a vote in this House?

I am sure that there could be a vote in the Scottish Parliament if the SNP Government decided to do that.

I am shocked and staggered that the Secretary of State has made this decision in the week before Christmas—“Bah humbug,” springs to mind. She has talked several times about making sure people get due notice in the future. Does the Secretary of State have plans to increase the pension age further?

No. What I am saying is that we have to be able to give people sufficient notice in future. That was at the heart of the problem with the former Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s decision to accelerate the increase in the state pension age, which caused so much anger among many people. We campaigned against that, including in the 2019 election in which we proposed compensation, but we lost that election, and the courts have since ruled that that decision was legal. That is why the ombudsman’s report is not about that decision, but about how changes were communicated. We will learn all the lessons from that maladministration to make sure it does not happen in future.

I stand here today on behalf of my many constituents who will feel utterly betrayed by this decision. Just months ago, people were promised a fresh start—a new change. Does the Secretary of State agree that not only will my constituents feel short-changed, but this decision will further compound a lack of trust in politics?

We are delivering change, with £22 billion of extra investment in the NHS and a substantial rise in the minimum wage that will deliver a pay rise for 3 million of the lowest-paid workers, as well as the biggest ever increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance to help family carers and a new flat repayment rate for universal credit to give an average of £420 per year to the poorest 1.2 million households. However, we also promised that we would be responsible with taxpayers’ money and take fair and appropriate decisions. I hear what the hon. Lady says about her constituents, but the ombudsman’s report is not about the increase in the state pension age for 1950s-born women. We will learn the lessons from the maladministration, but we do not agree with the ombudsman’s report to injustice or to remedy, which is why we have taken this decision.

On the Secretary of State’s website is a picture of her holding a sign that reads, “I will work with WASPI to identify and deliver a fair solution for all women affected”. Does she think that today’s announcement is a fair solution?

May I say gently that I know what is on my website? We did campaign with WASPI women, including in 2017 and 2019, but we lost those elections. This decision is not about the increase in the state pension age, which was what that campaign was about—that decision has been taken—but about how that increase was communicated. I know that it will cause disappointment and anger among many 1950s-born women, but we do not believe that the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy is right, which is why we have taken this decision.

In July, this country overwhelmingly voted for a change, but it is getting more of the same—more failure and more austerity. Nothing has changed apart from the excuses. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister’s approval rating has plummeted to minus 66%. Given that Labour has recently removed even more money from our pensioners’ pockets by taking away the winter fuel payment, will the Secretary of State please reconsider this betrayal and compensate the WASPI women, such as my constituents Ruth Smith and Rev. Elizabeth Maitland?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman supports an increase in the minimum wage that will deliver a £1,400-a-year pay increase for someone who is working full time on the minimum wage in Leicester. I am sure he agrees with the £22 billion additional investment in the NHS this year and next, and with a boost of £420 per year on average for people on universal credit in Leicester through the fair repayment rate. Those are the changes we are delivering, but on this issue, we do not believe the ombudsman’s approach on injustice or remedy is right. When 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that giving flat-rate compensation is a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.

The constituents I represent include thousands of WASPI women who will be disappointed by today’s statement. A number of references have been made to the campaigning that the Secretary of State has done with WASPI women. Does she feel regret that she has led them up the garden path towards believing that they might get some compensation, and while she has apologised for the Government’s part in the maladministration, will she apologise directly to the WASPI women in her constituency?

We were campaigning against the increase in the state pension age, and we had all sorts of proposals in our 2019 manifesto. We lost that election, and the courts have since decided that the increase in the state pension age was legal, so this decision is not about that. All I would say to WASPI women in my constituency—I have no doubt that they will contact me—is that I believe this is the fair and right decision. We are committed to supporting the lives of 1950s-born women, but we do not believe that the ombudsman’s approach on injustice or remedy is the right way forward, which is why we have taken this decision.

Many, many WASPI women will be appalled by the Secretary of State’s statement. When they look at today’s proceedings, would they be right in concluding that this Government were prepared to resolve the pensions of mineworkers, but not those of WASPI women?

We are prepared to take difficult decisions if we think that they are fair and right. That is why we have taken this approach to the issue of how the state pension age increase was communicated between 2004 and 2007. We agree with what the ombudsman says about maladministration, and I have set out our three action points: to make sure we have a clear and detailed action plan to learn all the lessons, to give people sufficient notice in future if their state pension age increases, and to have a detailed programme of communication about the state pension going forward. Those are firm actions to show that we have learned the lessons from this report.

I am sure that the 69-year-old who contacted me explaining how she had missed out on being able to care for her dying mother due to needing to work longer would have welcomed a letter giving her enough notice to plan her finances to allow otherwise. What support can the Secretary of State offer WASPI women, who are still disproportionately taking on caring responsibilities?

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. As we get older, many of us are working while caring for our elderly loved ones or for children—sometimes both—and those family carers need support. I have already set out the action we have taken, including the biggest ever boost to the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance and a serious, independent review of carers’ overpayments, but we can and should be doing more to support family carers. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk through her ideas that she thinks would benefit her constituents, if she would like.

I do not think I have ever seen quite so many glum faces on the Labour Benches, not for the two-child benefit cap or the winter fuel payment—this is beyond the pale. A handful of Labour Members have stood up and spoken their mind on this issue, and I commend them on that, but the Secretary of State has not answered the question of whether this House will be given a debate and a vote, which should happen in Government time. It is not just Scottish MPs who are asking for this; other MPs from other parties have done so. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider.

Back Benchers can put forward proposals for debates, as can Opposition parties. If the main Opposition party wants to do so, it would be perfectly at liberty to do so.

I and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches thought that today’s statement might be an early Christmas present for the WASPI women in my constituency and across the country. All those women will now be understandably devastated, and will be asking the same question: if the ombudsman has ruled that they were to have financial redress because of the maladministration and the Government are willing to ignore that finding, what else are this Government willing to ignore?

We do not ignore the ombudsman; we just do not agree with the approach he takes to injustice or to remedy. We provided research that showed that only one in four people who receive an unsolicited letter remember getting it or reading it, so even if we had sent those letters out earlier—which, as we have said, we should have done—we do not believe it would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. When 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot justify a flat-rate compensation scheme of up to £10.5 billion. We do not believe that that is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money. The ombudsman plays a really important role, and will continue to do so. I know that, as I have sent countless constituents to the ombudsman to try to get redress in the 14 years that I have been an MP. We continue to back their work and effort.

The Secretary of State has repeated time and again what this statement is not about, but what it is about is this Government not listening to the WASPI women and this Government not listening to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. In the Secretary of State’s statement, she said she will “develop a detailed action plan out of the report”. Considering that the report missed two thirds of this, especially the financial redress scheme, what action plan is she developing?

This is about how we make sure in such a situation that, once a Department has decided it needs to provide information and to send out letters, we actually do that, and do not have a 28-month delay. It is about asking what, in the 21st century, is the modern way to get personalised information and tailored advice to individuals about their state pension, their state pension age and, I would argue, all of their pensions. It is precisely about those issues, which matter so much, and dealing with the issues about the maladministration. If the hon. Member has any ideas about what more he thinks we should do on that issue, I am sure either I or my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister would be more than happy to meet him to hear his ideas.

Maladministration is a serious charge. I know the Secretary of State has taken a 360° pummelling on this, but she has declined to say that she would have compensated women if the economy were stronger, and she said it would not have made any difference if the letters had been sent. Surely, however, the overall charge of maladministration applies to the broader fact that women born in the 1950s did not know about these changes. Does she therefore agree with me that the failure is about not the channel, but the message?

No, I do not, because the ombudsman used the research that was provided to him—he looked at those aged 16-plus and found that 43% of them knew what their state pension age was—but he did not adequately reflect the research on the specific group of women affected. I think that is an important consideration, as part of our overall decision, which is not based on money alone. In Government, we have to look at what is a fair and proportionate use of taxpayers’ money, which is one of the elements along with the others—the impact of letters, the fact that the great majority of women knew—that has informed our conclusion, which I have set out.

Is not the appalling message from the Government today that maladministration pays? If, as here, we have nationwide maladministration and no consequences, what other conclusion could one reach? What is the point of an ombudsman if the Government can be the judge in their own cause and dispense with the findings? Surely, the whole purpose of finding maladministration is to ensure that the maladministrator pays.

I think it is the precise opposite. We accept what the ombudsman found about the maladministration, and we apologise and we will learn the lessons to put it right. However, if Parliament itself decides it wants to put the parliamentary ombudsman on a different footing, it can do so.

I say to the Secretary of State that this is neither fair nor right; this is a betrayal. Today, my thoughts are with the brave, dogged campaigners of WASPI Argyll and the Isles, particularly Ann Greer, who has worked so hard for so many years seeking justice. The Secretary of State said in her statement that the Government are choosing to do what they are doing because it would be a “significant cost” and an “administrative burden” to do the right thing. Does she not see that that is an incredibly lame excuse for denying natural justice to women who are asking for nothing more than to receive what is owed to them and to which they are entitled?

I would say that the ombudsman’s report itself says there would be a huge cost and administrative burden of going through 3.5 million women individually, but I am sure the hon. Member can read the ombudsman’s report and see that quote for himself. This is not about increases in the state pension age, which is what many of the women in the campaign have been very concerned about. It is about the communication, and for all the reasons I have set out, we have decided on this approach.

It is with great sadness that I rise to ask a question, and I am very disappointed by the statement. As the right hon. Lady will know, I stood shoulder to shoulder with many Labour Members, including the Secretary of State, in calling on the Government to do the right thing by the WASPI women. However, here we stand, six months into the new Government, and these women are poorer than ever, given the removal of the fuel allowance. Pensioners are borrowing more and paying off less, and the statement implies that the Government will do nothing. Will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what has changed for Labour Members? Six months ago, they stood up for the pensioners. I say that with great respect; the right hon. Lady will know that I speak with respect in this House. After taking advice not relevant to the report’s findings, why will the Government suppress the rights of these women once again? More importantly, when can the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency of Strangford expect their relief—not an apology, which will not heat their room by 1°? How sad it is that today, in this House, the ombudsman’s recommendations are being ignored, and right and justice have been denied.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his questions. As he knows, I have huge respect for him. While many 1950s-born women will be deeply disappointed by this specific decision, our commitment to the pensions triple lock, our investment in the NHS, our support for family carers through the carer’s allowance, and all the other things that we are doing to help people deal with the cost of living crisis—including getting family members into jobs, and then better jobs, and into better homes—means that, on the whole, we are delivering change. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), who has responsibility for pensions, or I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman—that goes for many other Members—to go through this in more detail.