Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

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.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

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?

[Sir John Hayes]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

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’.”

Paula wrote to me:

“As you know, thousands of women living in Dewsbury were impacted. Many, including me, were left with little time to make alternative plans for their retirement and have been affected by this lack of notice ever since.”

She raised a critical point, which was that she had no notification from the DWP at all until she wrote to it in 2006 asking for clarification. When it replied to say that she would be able to retire at 65, that came as a shock. In 2011, when an extra year was added, the DWP did not communicate that to her, either.

In conclusion, as the hon. Member for Salford has clearly explained, the Government’s justification for not paying compensation is absolutely flawed. The argument that it is too costly or complex to provide compensation is untrue. As the ombudsman wrote in its findings,

“finite resources should not be used as an excuse”

to avoid “a fair remedy.” As such, I repeat the calls of Members from across the House for the Government to reverse their decision, bring a vote on compensation to this House, and engage in out-of-court talks with WASPI women.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

I will make some progress.

Despite the obvious flaws in the Bill, we offered to support benefit changes in the national interest. The hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) asked a question, and I will answer it very clearly for those who have not been paying attention. We agreed to support the Government if they could make three simple commitments; they were not unachievable or unreasonable commitments. First, they had to cut the overall welfare bill, because we are spending far too much already. Secondly, they had to get more people into work. Thirdly, they had to stand by the Chancellor’s own commitment that, with taxes at a record level because of her choices, she would not come back for more tax rises.

What did we get from the Government? A sneery response indicating that they could manage on their own. How’s that going? What happened instead was that the number of MPs opposed to the Bill grew ever larger, until the inevitable U-turn finally came, announced by a press release dispatched after midnight and a panicked letter setting out that the reforms had been gutted. The Bill is now more incoherent than it was at the beginning.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Just to reflect on the record of the previous Government, as of 2024, approximately 24% of the UK population—nearly 16 million people—were living in poverty. Between 2019-20 and 2022-23, an additional 2.1 million people were living in poverty. In the year to April 2024, before the Labour Government came into power, 4.45 million children, or 31% of children in the UK, were living in relative poverty. Will the right hon. Lady agree with me that the previous Tory Government failed a majority of the population, including disabled people and children?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I definitely will not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is talking about relative poverty figures. The fact is that the best way to get people out of poverty is to get them into work—something we did again and again and again.

The Bill is more incoherent now than it was at the beginning. It does not do the job at all. Reforms that were not enough in the first place will now cut only £2 billion from a ballooning budget, instead of £5 billion. They will create a new welfare trap and a two-tier welfare system. Right up until the last moment, the Government kept pushing and pushing, ruling out changes and sending their poor, weary Ministers and ambitious Back-Bench bootlickers out on to the airwaves. At the last moment, as we have seen before, the Government abandon them after all of that—they have been hung out to dry.

The Government do not care how they have made their Back Benchers look, and it is not for the first time. Week after week, the Chancellor was sent here to say with a straight face that she was right to cut the winter fuel payment, that there would be no turning back and that the country’s finances would simply collapse if she did not take pensioners’ fuel money and give it to the trade unions, and her Back Benchers sucked that one up. They muttered and they grumbled, but each of them went back and told their constituents that the winter fuel payments were being confiscated to fix the foundations.

Only once pensioners had sat in the cold all winter, the Chancellor had tanked the economy and Labour MPs had had the door slammed in their face up and down the country did they finally accept that it was a mistake. This time, when asked to line up behind a Bill that takes money from older, disabled people with physical disabilities—a Bill that, according to the Government’s own modelling, gets no one into work—funnily enough, lots of Labour MPs did not fancy another go. Perhaps they will think twice next time the Chancellor comes to them with a bad idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I remember well the UN rapporteur saying that the Conservatives were engaged in cruelty towards people in this country who needed help the most.

What I cannot fathom is why a Labour Government are not first putting in the support and then letting it bed in, which is what will reduce the welfare bill and increase employment levels. The impact of any cuts would then not be as drastic. The starting point should never be cuts before proper support. The review led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who I have a lot of respect for, is starting to look a little bit predetermined as the change in criteria will happen at the same time as the review concludes. It remains unclear how existing claimants with fluctuating conditions will be assessed, and the impact that these changes will have on the carer’s allowance. However, we do know that disability living allowance claimants and those on other legacy benefits will be assessed under the new criteria, putting almost 800,000 disabled children at risk of losing support.

The north-east region has the highest number of disabled people in England, and the number of people searching for work outpaces the number of available jobs. How on earth will cutting the health element of universal credit incentivise those people to go out and find a job that does not even exist? Since PIP is an in-work benefit, restricting the very support that could keep people in work will only help to increase unemployment. All of this for £2.5 billion of savings, when we know that savings can be made elsewhere and when we know that those with the broadest shoulders could pay more. Instead, we are once again making disabled people pay the price for the economic mess that the Conservative party left us.

As it stands, we are being asked to vote blind today. There is no new Bill, no new explanatory notes and no fully updated impact assessment. There is no time for sufficient scrutiny, and no formal consultation has taken place with disabled people. The majority of employment support will not be in place until the end of the decade, and Access to Work remains worse than ever before. We are creating a two-tier, possibly three-tier, benefit system, and we know for certain that disabled people are going to be worse off. This is not a responsible way for any of us to legislate. It is predicted that disabled people will lose on average £4,500 per year, yet we know they already need an extra £1,095 per month just to have the same standard of living as those in non-disabled households. There is a reason why 138 organisations representing disabled people are against this Bill, and there is a reason why not a single organisation has come out in support of it.

I am pleading with MPs today to please do not do this. For those on my own Labour Benches, staying loyal to your party today may feel good in this place, but once you go home and are in your individual constituency, the reality of this will hit—and it will hit very hard.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Emma Lewell]

I am sorry, but I am concluding my comments.

Just as in 2015, constituents will never forgive us, and it will haunt those MPs who vote for this Bill. I, of all people, should know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I rise not just with grave concern but with absolute conviction. I speak in support of the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and with a plea to the Government to pause, think, reflect and bring back something that will work for the betterment of disabled people. I am afraid to say it, but I have been saddened to hear disabled people being presented in a negative light throughout this debate, although not by all Members. Disabled people are not a burden on society; they are part of society, and they make an invaluable contribution to it. The support that they receive allows them to make that invaluable contribution.

If this Bill passes, it will do unconscionable damage to disabled people, their carers and their families, who are already on the brink in this cost of living crisis. It will deepen poverty, increase hardship and undo decades of progress on social security. I urge the Government to withdraw it now and come back when it is fit for purpose. My independent alliance colleagues and I have been clear and consistent in saying that we are acutely aware of the devastation this Bill will cause. We have fought it and will fight it every step of the way until a Bill that is fit for purpose is before us.

Today we are being asked to sign off on billions of pounds in cuts without any credible data. We have a moving target, as elements of the Bill that are published will no longer apply when it comes back to the House. We have heard the Department’s analysis that 150,000 people would be pushed into poverty, and maybe more than 20,000 children. Despite the talk of concessions that were rushed out and tweaks that were made, they do not change the core injustice.

This Government want to create a two-tier welfare system in which today’s disabled people get help but tomorrow’s disabled people are discarded. New PIP claimants will have to pass a cruel new threshold to qualify for PIP compared with existing claimants. My question to the Secretary of State is: can she explain to my constituents who designed this four-point system? Who defined the criteria by which somebody would qualify or not qualify?

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

Does the hon. Member agree that now is the time when the Government need to confirm what we are voting on? We have had U-turn after U-turn, and I believe Members are confused.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I will accept a Government who listen, adapt and change their approach in the light of new evidence put before them, so I would congratulate the Government on improving on the proposals. I really do not question the core intentions. Fourteen years of waste and mismanagement have led us to the point of having an unmanageable welfare state, and that absolutely must be assessed and improved, but that cannot be at the expense of support for the most vulnerable in our society.

This Bill will impact not just on disabled people, but on carers. It slashes £500 million from carer’s allowance, which is the largest real-terms cut since the benefit was introduced in 1976. Carers save this country tens of billions of pounds through unpaid labour, and nearly half of them already live in poverty. Is this really the thanks that they deserve?

It gets worse: if an existing claimant loses their PIP on reassessment, which happens all too frequently due to assessor errors, they will be treated as a new claimant and be subject to stricter rules. That includes anyone moving from DLA to PIP. That is punitive and regressive, and will erode trust in the entire system.

We are told that there will be consultation, but what consultation happens when a Bill is pushed through in a single week without adequate scrutiny or engagement with those most affected? The principle of “Nothing about us without us” has been flagrantly ignored.

We have heard from Scope that the extra cost of living with a disability is nearly £1,100 a month, which is not covered by PIP. That is expected to top £1,200 by 2029, yet under this Bill those same people will be expected to survive without the support they rely on. The Government expect disabled people to shoulder £15,000 in extra costs and to offer them less and less.

The public see through this. Only 27% support these reforms, while nearly half of those surveyed believe that they will worsen the health of disabled people, and over half expect more pressure on the NHS. These cuts will make people sicker, more isolated and more dependent on an already overstretched service. The politics of this is damning, but it cannot be about politics—it must be about the people we are in this place to serve. I ask the Government to please go back, wait for the consultation to be completed, and then integrate the learnings and the feedback from the people affected so that this legislation makes a positive contribution to our society, not a negative one.

Disabled People in Poverty

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing the debate.

Fourteen years of austerity, followed by a global pandemic and then a cost of living crisis, has led to out-of-control inequality in Britain. People and communities have been hammered by austerity cuts to welfare, the NHS and the public services that bind us together and are the civilising force in our society. There is no doubt about it: cuts cost lives.

Last July, people voted for all that suffering to end. They were offered change by Labour. No one from any part of the country thought that, after 14 years of Tory austerity and welfare policies that robbed people of their dignity, the change they voted for would be billions of pounds in cuts from the welfare budget. People voted for something else, and I will be voting for something else.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Talking of austerity, Kirklees council has been devastated by the cuts imposed on it by the previous Government. Some 18.9% of people in Kirklees are recorded as disabled. Does the hon. Member agree that taking away PIP from nearly 4,200 residents in my constituency will put an even greater burden on council services that are ill-equipped to bear it?

[Brian Leishman]

I completely agree. I am glad the hon. Gentleman brought up the subject of local authorities and the added burden on them of picking up the pieces from this horrendous proposal.

As I said, I will be voting for something else. I will be voting against the cruel welfare reforms that the Government have put forward. A Labour Government should always lift people out of poverty, not put people in it.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree. Liz Sayce is doing excellent work, and I look forward to seeing the conclusions of her review in due course.

Turning to new clause 1, as I have said, the independent review that has been commissioned is expected to arrive at its conclusions this summer. It would be irresponsible for me to commit in advance to implementing all recommendations. As the House will understand, the recommendations will need to be given careful consideration when they are provided to the Department. Moreover, I do not believe that the new clause would have the effect intended.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am short of time. New clause 1 would prevent recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments via the new recovery powers in this Bill, but the DWP would still be able to recover carer’s allowance overpayments through deductions from benefits or through deductions from PAYE earnings. This would place carers in an unequal position in regard to overpayment recovery, with recovery depending on whether they were in receipt of benefits or in PAYE employment. Even if I believed that that was what the amendment intended, suspending recovery of all carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review has concluded would be disproport-ionate. There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, including appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional circumstances, the option to waive the debt.

I turn to new clause 21, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, spoke to, and I will refer to new clause 8, which proposes to introduce a new offence of fraud against a public authority. In my view, that is already covered by existing offences, making the amendment duplicative and unnecessary. Fraud is already an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regardless of whether the fraud is against public authorities or anyone else, is already in existence.

The Government amendments to clause 70 bring together the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 of

“possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds”,

with the offences of “assisting and encouraging” that are found in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. That allows us to tackle the issue that Committee members were concerned about—influencer-style offences, in which a person provides the knowledge needed to commit a fraudulent act through internet videos or manuals.

[Andrew Western]

I will not. I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman on this subject earlier, but I am short of time. [Interruption.] Had he stayed for the whole debate, I might have been more willing to do so, but I responded to his earlier invention.

In my view, we simply need to enforce existing law. Similarly, new clause 21 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting fraud. Again, in my view this is unnecessary, because that is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked for assurance that we would use the powers that we already have. As I said in response to interventions, I have commissioned work in the Department to look at how we can further use the powers that we have; in my view, historically, we have not taken best advantage of them.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I am sorry, but I will not.

Turning to new clause 10, we want to ensure that the Government have access to a wide, appropriate and proportionate range of debt recovery powers, so that we have multiple methods of recovering money from those who have the means to pay but refuse to do so. However, new clause 10 is not required, as equivalent action is already provided for through existing legislation for the DWP, and by clause 16 of this Bill for the PSFA. Clause 16 clarifies that the PSFA is able to seek alternative civil recovery through the civil courts. In addition, there are direct deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders in the Bill, which could include liability orders.

I have largely covered amendment 11. In closing, I want to make a few observations about amendments 8 and 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), but spoken to by other Members. In my view, those amendments would reduce the effectiveness of our debt recovery powers as proposed in the Bill, so I cannot agree to them. I recognise the importance of dialogue with customers all the way through the journey of debt recovery. As I set out in response to the concerns about the revocation of driving licences raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, we will seek to engage with people at all stages of the journey. If we identified any vulnerabilities, we would cease recovery, and at all stages we would look to agree an affordable repayment plan.

I hope that I have addressed the majority of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, and I thank them again for their contributions. I thank the witnesses who gave their time to the Committee, and those who provided written evidence. Finally, I extend my thanks to the Clerks, the House staff and civil servants who have contributed to the passage of the Bill.

For too long, too little effort has been made to get a grip on public sector fraud, resulting in the totally unacceptable levels that we see today. With this Bill, we are taking the powers needed to act and to finally take the fight to the crooks and the con artists, from criminal gangs attacking our welfare system to covid fraudsters who stole from hard-working people in a time of national emergency.

This Bill is critical. It will save us billions of pounds, and it is part of a broader package in the Department to save £9.6 billion for the DWP by 2030. I hope that all Members feel able to support it today.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 17 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am a new Member, and one of the first emails I received was from a WASPI woman. She followed up with a further email, which—to take as little time as possible—I will read out.

“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.

As my elected MP, please can you make it known that, as a lifelong supporter of the Labour Party, I am totally disgusted by this volte-face.

I am a WASPI woman who fortunately worked for many years as a teacher and therefore have an occupational pension. I have not been campaigning for myself but for the many women who were in low paid jobs or had caring responsibilities and were not in a position to have a private pension and were therefore relying on a state pension from the age of 60. I understand the equalisation of the ages but, as the ombudsman stated, many women were unaware of the increase in age, in my case two increases. I had one letter about it. Even women who knew about it were often not in a position to ‘make appropriate financial adjustments to their planning.’

The people making these decisions are in fortunate positions themselves but I was relying on their understanding and compassion for others who are less able to make up the circa £48,000 which I reckon to have ‘lost’.

The government has let WASPI women down. We are not in a great position to protest about this. I am asking you to make the protest on our behalf please.”

Food Banks

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this important debate forward.

Food poverty—and poverty in general—is a growing crisis in the UK that demands urgent action. The increasing reliance on food banks is not only a humanitarian concern but a reflection of deeper systemic challenges that we as a society must address. We have heard the statistics from Members from all parties, and they are sobering. In 2023-24, the Trussell Trust had 1,699 food banks—a number that has only increased—and there are nearly 1,200 independent food banks across the country. I estimate that there are more than 3,000 food banks today, distributing 4 million to 5 million parcels every year.

The root causes have been identified, so I will not take up time repeating them, but they include the failure of wages to keep pace with the rising cost of living and inflation, with many workers trapped in low-paid and insecure jobs; benefit cuts; delays in universal credit payments; the two-child benefit cap; and now the compounding factor of the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance. In my constituency, four out of 10 children live in poverty.

The reliance on food banks is a symptom of deeper issues. It is about not just food insecurity but income insecurity. The Government must act decisively to address the root causes. I welcome the raising of the minimum wage, but it must reflect the actual cost of living. Benefits must also reflect the cost of living. A single person allowance of £85 is £25 less than is required to cover the cost of a person’s basic essentials, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

The increasing use of food banks is not inevitable: it is a consequence of policy choices. The UK is the sixth-wealthiest nation in the world, and no one should go hungry in one of the world’s largest economies.

Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I would be very pleased if all pensioners who are eligible for pension credit applied and received the help that they deserve.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The Minister will be aware that billions of pounds in benefits and financial help, including pension credit, goes unclaimed every year due to the stigma associated with claiming benefits, and the huge difficulty that claimants encounter when navigating the system. What measures are the Government taking to encourage greater take-up and to simplify the benefits system?