Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady has been a formidable campaigner for these women. In answer to her question, no, I have not had any joyous information from the Government as of yet, which is why we are here today. I will outline why I think the Government’s statement and response to the ombudsman’s report was misinformed. While I understand the financial difficulties the Government face, options are available, and cost should never be a barrier to addressing injustice.

Many of the campaign groups are clear that the statistics used by Government to justify no redress are misquoted and misinformed, painting a picture that is completely at odds with the experiences of thousands of impacted women, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has outlined, the ombudsman’s findings and the results of independent research. Research by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2003 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the changes knew that their state pension age was changing. The research itself even comments that:

“This low figure provides cause for concern and shows that information about the increase in SPA is not reaching the group of individuals who arguably have the greatest need to be informed.”

Independent research, including a focus group study by Age UK from as late as 2011, has also found that many women believed that they were still going to retire with a state pension at 60.

Further, the ombudsman’s report also focused on the continued failure of the DWP to recognise and respond to this research and feedback. Indeed, this point was flagged by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2013 and the National Audit Office in 2016, but the DWP still failed to take any meaningful action.

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

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her leadership of this campaign. The situation is worse still than she paints it to be, for the ombudsman made clear that the

“DWP has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply”

with the ombudsman’s recommendations, inviting Parliament to step in to resolve the matter. This is officialdom closing ranks, is it not?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The right hon. Gentleman has been a formidable campaigner for the women affected and an ally in the campaign in this House. He is correct. I will explain in a moment how unprecedented it is for a Government to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in this way, and how dangerous it is, in fact, for our democracy and for citizens’ ability to hold their Governments to account.

I will turn back to the statistics that the Government relied on in their response to the ombudsman’s report. Instead of the clear findings that I have outlined, the Government relied on abstract figures from research carried out in 2004 and 2006 by the Department for Work and Pensions, which suggested that 73% and 90%, respectively, of women born in the 1950s knew that their own state pension age was increasing, but that is not correct. I must flag this with the Minister for clarity: the question asked in the surveys was crucial. It was, “Do you know that the broad state pension age is due to increase at some point in the future?”. It was not, “Do you know that your own state pension age is going to increase?”. It is wrong, in my view, to make the assertion that 73% and 90% of women knew that their state pension age was changing, because the facts prove that they simply did not.

Next, when an ombudsman makes recommendations to Government, as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has alluded to, the usual course of action is for the Government to accept them. Further, on this occasion, the ombudsman made the incredibly rare decision to lodge its report before Parliament, not before the Department for Work and Pensions, which it did because, based on its dealings with the DWP, it already feared and knew that the report would be ignored. It is clear that the ombudsman realised this was an important issue, and that it wanted Government to listen.

There have been only eight other occasions where the ombudsman has felt the need to put down a special report in this way, the first being in 1978. All resulted in the full implementation of the recommendations save one, the Earl report. In that case, the Environment Agency still complied with three out of the four recommendations, and on the fourth implemented an alternative compensation offer.

I cannot stress enough that the decision to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in full is unprecedented, and is, in fact, dangerous, as it sets a precedent that regardless of what an independent adjudicator recommends concerning state-level injustice, the Government can now ignore them. It strips away one of the only levers that citizens have to hold the Government of the time to account.

All the amazing campaign groups that we in this House work with are clear: this has been a state injustice. It has caused significant harm to these women, and while welcome, a limited Government apology is, without any material redress, not acceptable for a grave injustice that has driven so many into debt or poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Torsten Bell]

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

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

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

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

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

[Torsten Bell]

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

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

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

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