Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I want to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for this campaign. Reference has been made to the manifesto in 2019. She and I wrote that section. We worked with WASPI and all the campaigns and with Lord Bryn Davies. We, in the modern language, “co-produced” a scheme at that point. We looked at how much these women had lost—how much they had been robbed—which was about £200 million, and they asked for 25% back, just a quarter. It was expensive—of course it was—but there was a window of opportunity because we said that we would borrow that and pay it out over a five-year period. At that point in time, interest rates were so low, and in fact some went into negative interest rates, that we could afford it. We have lost that window of opportunity, and I am angry that that happened. I am angry because I do not know any MP, exactly as has been said, who was not photographed behind a poster supporting the campaign. I pay tribute to the campaign. A lot of those ladies have been patronised over the years. It was a terrific campaign. In fact, it was so terrific that under this Government, it would most probably be proscribed, but there we are.

We all recognise now that there is an injustice—we all accept that. We all know that the DWP operated essentially a sexist policy; it admits that now. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said it is a matter of principle. I do not think it is a matter of principle; it is a matter of hard cash as well, because large numbers of people are still suffering poverty as a result of what has gone on. All I want is a fair settlement, and that is all they are asking for. They are not going away—well, some of them have, because they have died—and this campaign is not going away. We will not let it go away until we get justice for these women.

What the ombudsperson has done is put the matter back to this House. We in this House should be demanding that this House determines the scheme itself and is allowed to vote on that scheme. A Budget is coming up in November. A number of us will not support that Budget unless there is something in it for these women. Why should we? Why should we let this go on for another year, while people suffer and the injustice goes unremedied?

I am angry about this. All the promises given over the years have been reneged on and dishonoured. That is not the way we should act as representatives of our communities. I want to be able to go back and say, “At least now the Government are going to offer you negotiations; then, they will report to the House and let the House determine the nature of the scheme.” I want that done within months, not allowed to drag on for years while people suffer in poverty, or lose their lives or their hope of compensation.

Let us make this commitment today. To be honest, I do not expect the Minister to say much today, other than what has been regurgitated year after year, but let us, as an assembly, make that commitment today. Let us say that we will keep coming back over the coming months until we secure that commitment from the Government. I would like it to be a cross-party commitment which all the Front Benchers sign up to, so that we can have some confidence that it will be delivered. Like the WASPI women, I have had enough—enough of these debates, enough of promises not delivered, enough of watching the suffering that women in all our communities have had to endure because of this injustice and inequity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I am a liberal man. People will come to different views on the evidence. There are many Members in the House who have campaigned powerfully on this issue over many years, and I respect the work they have done on that. I am setting out a different view from the one that the right hon. Member has taken. That is the nature of policy choice, the nature of accountability, and the nature of this debate.

The ombudsman is clear that redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact, as it did in the case of the Equitable Life compensation scheme that an hon. Member mentioned. And they spell out the challenges of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women, not least given that it took the ombudsman nearly six years to look at just six cases. The reality is that assessing them would take thousands of staff very many years. We gave detailed thought to whether we could design a fair and feasible compensation scheme. However, most of the schemes that were suggested would not focus on women who lost opportunities as a result of the delay in sending letters. Rule-based schemes, such as that suggested by the Work and Pensions Committee, would make payments on the basis of the likes of age rather than injustice. Simply playing a flat rate to all 3.5 million women born in the 1950s, irrespective of any injustice, is also hard to justify.

Fundamentally, though, our decision was not only driven by cost—to answer directly the question of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank)—but by the fact that we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy for the reasons that I have set out. Indeed, our commitment to pensioners can be seen in the significant fiscal investments that we are making in our priorities for pensioners, including raising the state pension and rescuing the NHS.

[John McDonnell]

I have an awful lot of affection for the hon. Member. Is there any difference between this speech and the one that was made in Westminster Hall? As it does not look as though there is, he might as well just send us the tape of the last one.

[Torsten Bell]

Well, the right hon. Member has demonstrated more affection on previous occasions is what I would gently say to that. If he is asking me whether the Government’s position has changed, I am afraid that the answer, from his perspective, is no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I want to thank the whole range of colleagues who have spoken today. It has been a fantastic collegiate debate that has shown the House at its best. For those outside of the Chamber who are watching, the campaign continues. It is a campaign that brings so many of us together, and there are so many formidable campaigners in this Chamber who need to be celebrated.

I know that the Minister is in a difficult position, and I have a lot of time for him, as I say. I know that he is bound by the Government’s current position on this issue, but I want to pick up on some of the information he gave in his speech. He said that I referred to a piece of research from 2024, but it was actually from 2003, and it is research that the ombudsman itself relies on in saying that 43% of women did not know that the state pension age was increasing. The Minister again made the point about letters being ineffective, but he must understand that to people watching this debate, that is an absurd thing to say. I know that he says that DWP research states that, but the research is absurd and does not really have any basis in reality.

I do not want the Minister to go down in history as the man who denied justice for the 1950s-born women— I honestly do not. I want to see action on this, and I want him to go down as the person who finally managed to award these women justice. He has to understand that the arguments being put forward by the Government are absurd to say the least. In fact, in denying the ombudsman’s report, the argument is akin to arguing that the world is flat.

[John McDonnell]

It is certainly not an argument that the Resolution Foundation would have put forward when the Minister was director of it.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is not. That is why I place so much hope in the Minister to take action on this.

To conclude, there were two statements made by colleagues that stood out for me. The first was from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who said that in the name of decency, justice must be done. The Minister must recognise that, so I urge him to get round the table with the women and present a package before Parliament that we can all support and celebrate. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, we are not going to give up until justice is done, and neither are the women.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report on Women’s State Pension Age, HC 638, published in March 2024, which found that maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control; further notes that there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995; and also notes that, given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, the PHSO took the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene, laying their report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and asked Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice.