Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of compensating 1950s-born women impacted by the maladministration of state pension age changes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of providing compensation to women born in the 1950s affected by changes to the state pension age.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

22. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of implementing the recommendations in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report entitled “Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues”, published on 21 March 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

As I have previously said to this House, it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government to take a different view from the PHSO. That does not mean that we have not taken its report incredibly seriously—I have also met its representatives—but as I have said, we set out the detailed reasons for the decision we came to in the response we laid in the House of Commons Library on 29 January.

[Jim Shannon]

I ask this question on behalf of the 6,000 WASPI women in Strangford. Given that the Department’s own 2007 evaluation raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of letters to pensioners, how can the Minister justify the decision that no direct financial loss occurred when thousands of women were deprived of the 28-month notice period required to adjust their life savings and retirement plans? In the light of the Scottish Parliament’s decision to again press this issue in February, will he please do the right thing, put actions before apologies, and deliver help and support? I say that respectfully, but I do want a good answer.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member has raised this issue repeatedly over a number of years, and I recognise that. Specifically on the issues he raises, it was the ombudsman itself, rather than the Government, that initially set out that the women affected did not suffer direct financial loss. What is sitting behind the ombudsman’s judgment saying that is that the issue facing the ombudsman was not either the original decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age or the decision to accelerate the increase by the coalition Government in 2011. The ombudsman was looking narrowly at the question of how that increase in the state pension age was communicated, and I think it is really important to clarify that distinction with our constituents. It is the latter—the communication of the state pension age—that we have discussed in this House on numerous occasions.

The hon. Member specifically raises the 2007 evidence, which showed that a minority of people read and remembered such letters. However, it showed something else quite important, which was that those with good knowledge of their state pension entitlement were most likely to read the letters. It was therefore not a good metric for assuming that the majority of those who were sent letters would have learned something from that and changed what they knew.