Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

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 understand from representations made by the campaign groups in my constituency—both WASPI and the 1950s Women of Wales—that they are keen to seek this resolution to ensure some justice for them and their fellow 1950s-born women. They are being very pragmatic. They are willing to speak with and discuss the matter with the Government. I plead the Minister today to reconsider the opportunity that has been presented by these groups to discuss other ways of bringing a resolution forward, so that 1950s-born women can at long last have some justice. We should not force them to go through the judicial review process and drag them through the courts. Far too many years have already been spent trying to right this wrong.

We cannot delay any further because estimates suggest that over 300,000 1950s-born women have already passed away since this injustice came to light. That is equivalent to one 1950s-born woman dying every 12 minutes. There is an opportunity here to get back round the table, and I urge the Minister and the Government to do so.

Winter Fuel Payment

Ben Lake Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I should have got out of the way, because my hon. Friend has given a direct rebuttal to what was said by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). He is entirely correct in every detail of the important points that he has raised. A Labour Government investing in public services and ending austerity: that is what we will be hearing about in the House on Wednesday, and I look forward to hearing Conservative Members explain how they tried to support that spending while opposing every tax rise that was necessary to make it happen.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, not least because it will offer much support and reassurance to so many of my constituents. As he knows, no system is perfect and mistakes will be made, so may I ask whether there will be an appeals mechanism for those who are entitled to the winter fuel payment but, for whatever reason, do not receive it?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member, my near neighbour, for that question. No bureaucracy is perfect, but in such cases we do not need an appeals mechanism; we just need to ensure that those people receive the payment as soon as possible. As I have said, we have made this decision to ensure that we can automatically make winter fuel payments to people who are receiving all the benefits that I mentioned, and who also received the payments previously. The success rate of that payment mechanism is strong, which is why I have made this announcement today. However, if any Members have any constituents in that position, I ask them to get in touch with me immediately.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Ben Lake Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on opening this debate in such a powerful way.

I had to do some sums earlier on, because I seem to recall that the very first time I spoke as a Member of Parliament was in a debate, in this very Chamber, about this injustice to 1950s-born women. I was able to find out that I made that contribution on 5 July 2017. If I recall correctly, there was then, as there seems to be this afternoon, great consensus amongst Members that 1950s-born women have indeed suffered a great injustice. What has changed since then, however, is that we have had years of debates, petitions, demonstrations and an investigation by the ombudsman, who has also found in their favour.

Little could I have imagined back then—some eight years ago, now—that we would be standing here in this very Chamber debating and agreeing yet again that a great injustice had befallen 1950s-born women, yet also be arguing about a Government refusing to implement and honour the recommendations of the ombudsman. It would be easy to despair if it were not for the 1950s-born women of my constituency, who are an absolute inspiration. Thousands of women have spent the past eight or so years diligently attending meetings, organising petitions and offering support to each other. The impact of the maladministration has been severe, as others have mentioned: people have fallen into great financial hardship and distress, which has led far too often to strain on family relationships, as well as an impact on people’s health.

However, these women have stuck together, organised and ensured that they give each other support in the darkest of days. More importantly, they set about the task of diligently collecting the information and evidence required of them to prove their case as part of the ombudsman’s process. These women have done that. They have jumped through the many hoops of the various stages of the ombudsman process, with some compiling cases for the independent case examiner.

I agree with all those who have spoken before me: it is a real travesty for us to fail to offer those women justice after they have proven their case and had the ombudsman rule in their favour. I agree with others that that calls into question the integrity of not only the ombudsman process itself, but, more fundamentally, the whole democratic process that Parliament embodies.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a powerful and eloquent case. He is absolutely right that the issue goes beyond even the just case of the WASPI women to something more fundamental: how Governments are held to account and how they willingly deal with that—this is not something that should be extracted with pain and anguish. The Government should step forward, change their heart and their tune, and deliver.

[Ben Lake]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and I very much agree. We have an opportunity to right this wrong now. That would not only deliver justice to the 1950s-born women who suffered as a consequence of the changes—or the failure to communicate them—to the state pension age, but provide an important contribution to restoring faith in MPs, Parliament and the whole democratic process. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.

However, I have to say—perhaps this is the cynic or the pessimist in me—that when we consider everything we have asked 1950’s-born women to do in recent years, such as jumping through all the various hoops and processes, coming up to London, which is quite the journey to make from west Wales, petitioning, demonstrating and organising, it is quite outrageous to ignore the ombudsman after it has proven, acceded to and accepted their case. On top of that, the Government are now, I understand, refusing to even engage with representatives of 1950s-born women in alternative forms of mediation. Perhaps worst of all, they are not giving Parliament the opportunity in Government time to vote on the matter. That is my one call and request of the Minister.

We have already heard this afternoon about the four options offered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Give us that chance to express and voice the will of Parliament. I am confident that there is consensus in Parliament to see justice done for a generation of inspiring women, whom I feel incredibly honoured to represent.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point simply and clearly. The Bill is about tackling fraud and people who have defrauded the public purse. I am sure his local newspaper will write his comments up very clearly.

The fourth chapter of part 2 of the Bill is about widening our ability to punish fraudsters using a financial penalty as an alternative to seeking prosecutions. At the moment, we can issue financial penalties only in cases of benefit fraud. The Bill extends our ability to use them in cases of fraud against any type of DWP payment—for example, if we had any future scheme like the kickstart employment scheme. That will ensure that more fraudsters committing a wider range of fraud can be dealt with swiftly without going to court.

Last but not least, the Bill gives the DWP more power to get back public money that someone owes in cases where they can repay it but repeatedly refuse to do so. This power does not cover people on benefits or in payrolled employment, because money can already be recovered through the social security or pay-as-you-earn systems, but for people who have moved off benefits and are not on PAYE—for example, because they are self-employed or now living off savings—the Bill will enable the DWP to request the bank statements of people we know owe us money but who have repeatedly refused to engage with us, to verify that they have sufficient funds to repay. We can then recover the money from their bank account through either a one-off lump sum or regular deductions. That will be done in a fair and manageable way, with time for the person to make any representations and the right to appeal.

As a last resort, if someone owes us more than £1,000 and continues to repeatedly refuse to engage with us and agree how they will pay the money back, we can go to court and get an order to disqualify that person from driving for up to two years. This is the same power that the Child Maintenance Service has been able to use for the last 25 years in cases where a parent repeatedly refuses to make payments to support their child. In considering a disqualification order, a court will always check whether the person needs a driving licence for work, because taking it away would be totally counterproductive if they do, and look at other reasons why a license may be essential, such as if the person is disabled or a carer. The measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage with the system. It is an important power that the DWP should have to bring people to the table for a discussion about how they will repay the money that they owe. We are clear that someone keeping public money to which they are not entitled is serious, and will result in serious consequences.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining some of the Government’s thinking behind clause 91. Will she elaborate on whether the Government have considered the fact that such a disqualification would have a disproportionate impact on somebody living in a remote area, compared with those in more urban areas, where there is much greater access to public transport?

[Liz Kendall]

As I said, the court will always look at whether the person needs a car for their job, but we cannot say that people are allowed to get away with fraud in different parts of the country. This is about getting money back. The measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage with us, and who we know have the money to repay what they owe. We can bring them to the table and have a discussion about that repayment. I think that most members of the public would think that that is totally reasonable and fair, and that is the new power that we will have.

Let me turn to the strong new safeguarding measures in the Bill. First, as I have said, there will be independent oversight in the Bill for the eligibility verification measure, and new powers for the DWP and the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate fraud. I will appoint an independent person to oversee how the EVM is being used and its effectiveness. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), will also appoint an independent person to review the use of the PSFA measures. Both will be required to provide reports to the Government, which will be published and laid before Parliament. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will oversee the investigation powers of the DWP and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. Any complaints about the use of the new search and seizure powers in the Bill will be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.