The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride) With
permission, I would like to make a statement to provide an interim
update on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s
investigation into the way that changes to the state pension age
were communicated to women born in the 1950s. I am grateful to the
ombudsman for conducting this investigation. I recognise the
strength of feeling on this issue, and it is important to set out
the wider context and our...Request free
trial
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ()
With permission, I would like to make a statement to provide an
interim update on the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman’s investigation into the way that changes to the state
pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. I am
grateful to the ombudsman for conducting this investigation.
I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and it is
important to set out the wider context and our initial
understanding of the report itself. The fact that it has taken
over five years for the ombudsman to produce the final report
reflects the complexity of this matter. The period that the
investigation considers spans around 30 years, dating back to the
decision that Parliament took in 1995 to equalise the state
pension age for men and women gradually from 2010. Since then,
changes have been made through a series of Acts of Parliament
introduced by successive Governments, which resulted in the state
pension age for women rising to 65 by November 2018, and then to
66 by October 2020.
The announcement in 1993 about equalising the state pension age
addressed a long-standing inequality between men and women. The
changes were about maintaining the right balance between the
sustainability of the state pension, fairness between generations
and ensuring a dignified retirement in later life. Women retiring
today can still expect to receive the state pension for more than
21 years on average—over two years longer than for men. Had the
Government not equalised the state pension age, women would have
been retiring today at 60, and they could have spent, on average,
over 40% of their adult lives in receipt of the state pension.
That would have been unfair, because, by the 1990s, life
expectancy had significantly increased compared with 1948, when
the state pension age for women was set at 60.
Turning to the investigation itself, it is important to be clear
about what the ombudsman has not said, particularly following
some of the inaccurate and misleading commentary since the report
was published. The ombudsman has looked not at the decision to
equalise the state pension age, but at how that decision was
communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions. The report
hinges on the Department’s decisions over a narrow period between
2005 and 2007, and on the effect of those decisions on individual
notifications. The ombudsman has not found that women have
directly lost out financially as a result of DWP’s actions. The
report states:
“We do not find that it”—
meaning DWP’s communication—resulted in the complainants
“suffering direct financial loss”.
The final report has not said that all women born in the 1950s
will have been adversely impacted, as many women were aware that
the state pension age had changed.
In his stage 1 report, the ombudsman found that
“between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of changes to State
Pension age reflected the standards we would expect it to
meet.”
The report also confirms that accurate information about changes
to the state pension age was publicly available in leaflets,
through DWP’s pension education campaigns, through DWP’s
agencies, and on its website. However, when considering the DWP’s
actions between August 2005 and December 2007, the ombudsman came
to the view that those actions resulted in 1950s-born women
receiving individual notice later than they might, had different
decisions been made.
It is important to remember that during the course of the
ombudsman’s investigation, the state pension age changes were
considered by the courts. In 2019 and 2020, the High Court and
the Court of Appeal respectively found no fault with the actions
of the DWP. The courts made it clear that under successive
Governments dating back to 1995, the action taken was entirely
lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds. During these
proceedings, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was
entitled to conclude as a fact that there had been
“adequate and reasonable notification given by the publicity
campaigns implemented by the Department over a number of
years.”
The ombudsman has taken five years to produce his final report.
As the chief executive of the ombudsman herself has set out, the
DWP has fully co-operated with the ombudsman’s investigation
throughout this time and provided thousands of pages of detailed
evidence. We continue to take the work of the ombudsman very
seriously, and it is only right that we now fully and properly
consider the findings and details of what is a substantial
document. The ombudsman has noted in his report the challenges
and complexities of this issue. In laying the report before
Parliament, the ombudsman has brought matters to the attention of
the House, and we will provide a further update to the House once
we have considered the report’s findings.
This Government have a strong track record of supporting all
pensioners. In 2023-24, we will spend over £151 billion on
support for pensioners. That is 5.5% of GDP, and includes around
£124 billion for the state pension. We are committed to ensuring
that the state pension remains the foundation of income in
retirement now and for future generations. That is why we are
honouring the triple lock by increasing the basic and new state
pensions by 8.5% from next month. This sees the full rate of the
new state pension rise by £900 a year and it follows last year’s
rise of 10.1%.
We now have 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty after
housing costs than there were in 2010. Our sustained commitment
to the triple lock demonstrates our determination to continue to
combat pensioner poverty in the future. That is why we have
reformed the state pension as well as workplace pensions,
improving the retirement outcomes for many women. Our commitment
to pensioners is why we introduced automatic enrolment, which has
seen millions more women saving into a workplace pension.
This Government are committed to supporting pensioners in a
sustainable way, providing them with a dignified retirement while
also being fair to them and to taxpayers. I have set out our
strong track record of backing our pensioners. I have also set
out our commitment to the full and proper consideration of the
ombudsman’s report. I note that the ombudsman has laid his final
report on this issue before Parliament, and of course I can
assure the House that the Government will continue to engage
fully and constructively with Parliament, as we have done with
the ombudsman.4.53pm
(Leicester West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his
statement, and thank the ombudsman and his staff for all their
hard work. This is a serious report that requires serious
consideration. The ombudsman has rightly said that it is for the
Government to respond but that Parliament should also consider
its findings. Labour Members will look carefully at the report
too, and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we
have done from the start.
The Secretary of State says that he will provide a further update
to the House on this matter. When will he do so after the House
returns from its Easter recess? This has been going on for years.
He rightly says that issues around the changes to the state
pension age have spanned multiple Parliaments, but those of us
who have been around a little while will remember that the
turning point that sparked the Women Against State Pension
Inequality campaign was the Pensions Act 2011, in which the then
Chancellor, decided to accelerate the
state pension age increases with very little notice. His comment
that this
“probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”
understandably angered many women. At the time, Labour tabled
amendments that would have ensured proper notice was given so
that women could plan for their retirement, which would have gone
some way towards dealing with this problem.
The ombudsman began investigating how changes to the state
pension age were communicated in 2019. In the same year, the High
Court ruled that the ombudsman could not recommend changes to the
state pension age itself or the reimbursement of lost pensions,
because that had been decided by Parliament.
The ombudsman’s final report, published last week, says that, in
2004, internal research from the Department for Work and Pensions
found that around 40% of the women affected knew about the
changes to the state pension age. Does that remain the
Government’s assessment? What is their assessment of the total
number of women who would receive compensation based on the
ombudsman’s different options? How many of them are the poorest
pensioners on pension credit? How many are already retired or
have, sadly, passed away? Given the Department already knew there
were problems with communicating changes to the state pension
age, why did the Government press ahead with the changes in the
2011 Act in the way they did, and in the way that sparked the
WASPI campaign?
The Government are currently committed to providing 10 years’
notice of future changes to the state pension age, but Labour’s
2005 pension commission called for 15 years’ notice. Have the
Government considered the merits of a longer timeframe, and how
they would improve communications in future? Labour is fully
committed to guaranteeing that information about any future
changes to the state pension age is provided in a timely and
targeted way that is, wherever possible, tailored to individual
needs. Will the Government now do the same?
Crucially, the Secretary of State omitted to say that the
ombudsman took the rare decision to ask Parliament to intervene
on this issue because the ombudsman strongly doubts that the
Department will provide a remedy. In the light of these concerns,
and in order to aid Parliament in its work, will the Secretary of
State now commit to laying all the relevant information about
this issue, including all impact assessments and related
correspondence, in the House of Commons Library so that lessons
can be learned and so that Members across the House can properly
do their job? Our current and future pensioners deserve nothing
less.
I thank the hon. Lady for her response, not least on the apparent
points of agreement between us. We accept that there are strong
feelings about these complex issues, and she is right to say that
they must be given serious consideration and that we should
listen respectfully to all those affected. She asks when the
Government will return to the House with a further update, and I
can assure her that there will be no undue delay.
The hon. Lady made a slightly political point about the 2011 Act,
and I gently remind her that the ombudsman’s report focuses on
the period between 2005 and 2007, when her party was in
government.
The hon. Lady asked a series of questions about various
assessments based on the findings in the report. Of course, that
goes to the heart of my response, which is—and I think she agrees
with this—that we should look closely at the report in order to
make those assessments.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point about notice of changes to
state pension age, it has always been the position that that
should be adequate. Indeed, in the last review that I undertook
of it, there was a delay in the decision to increase the state
pension age to 68 into the next Parliament. Among other reasons,
that was to allow for just that point to be addressed.
What is particularly important now is that we will fully engage
with Parliament, as we did with the ombudsman. On the hon. Lady’s
point about the ombudsman, its chief executive stated on Sky News
on Thursday, the day the report was published:
“The Government, the DWP, completely co-operated with our report,
with our investigation, and over the period of time we have been
working they have provided us with the evidence that we asked
for.”
That is our record in this particular matter, but may I once
again assure the House that the Government will continue to
engage fully and constructively with Parliament, as we have done
with the ombudsman?
(Romsey and Southampton
North) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and his emphasis that
this is a complex matter—of course it is. However, the WASPI
women have been waiting five years for the outcome of the
ombudsman’s report. In his report and subsequent to it, when he
wrote to various Select Committee Chairs from across the House,
he gently encouraged us to keep a weather eye on how quickly the
Government come forward with a solution. I recognise that this is
an interim update, but I gently press my right hon. Friend: the
WASPI women have been waiting five years for the ombudsman and
they will not want to wait for a Select Committee inquiry into
this report in order to see action from the Government.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s question. Let me reassure her,
as I have just reassured the House, that there will be no undue
delay in our approach to this matter. We engaged fully with the
ombudsman— that included more than 1,000 pages of evidence and a
full commentary in respect of the previous interim report that it
published. This report is more than 100 pages in length and it is
very detailed, so it is only right that we do, in an appropriate
manner, give it the due attention that it deserves.
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
The timid response from the Labour party is truly shocking.
Regardless of what we have just heard, WASPI women have at long
last been vindicated, after five long years, by the Parliamentary
and Health Service Ombudsman report. Some 3.8 million women were
impacted, of whom 270,000 have died without ever receiving their
rightful pension.
Despite what the Secretary of State says, the verdict of the
ombudsman’s report on the Department for Work and Pensions is
damning and unequivocal, and weasel words will not change that.
Women born in the 1950s had their pension age raised with little
or no notice, and there have been failings at every turn by
successive UK Governments. The report states that these women are
owed compensation; that the DWP has refused to comply and must be
held accountable for doing so; and that there was a failure to
adequately inform women of the state pension age change. Those
failures have had a devastating impact on lives, retirements and
the financial and emotional wellbeing of WASPI women. Many have
been reduced to poverty after being robbed of tens of thousands
of pounds of pension, and that suffering has been caused by and
is the responsibility of this broken Westminster system and this
cosy Westminster consensus.
Financial redress is vital for these women and is in the
interests of justice. Clearly Labour is not interested in that,
but what we need from the Government is a commitment to prompt
compensation for these women—with no barriers erected to prevent
access to it—that recognises their financial loss and distress.
We cannot have a situation where WASPI women have their campaign
for justice vindicated and yet continue to be ignored. Any
attempt to do that will rightfully result in a backlash.
We in the SNP stand shoulder to shoulder with these women, who
have been abandoned and betrayed by the UK Government and the
future Labour Government. Will the Secretary of State tell the
House what it will take to compensate these women? Do we need
another TV drama to embarrass and shame the Government into doing
the right thing? These women are not going away but the longer
this injustice is left unresolved, the greater the number of
WASPI women who will die without seeing their pension—shame on
this place.
The hon. Lady refers to “doing the right thing”. Doing the right
thing by the people the hon. Lady describes is to look very
closely, carefully and diligently at the report. It has been five
years in gestation. It is detailed, runs to 100 pages and draws
upon a vast reservoir of evidence. It is only right and proper,
given that the report was published on Thursday and today is
Monday, for all of us to have time to properly consider its
findings. [Interruption.]
The hon. Lady refers to the general situation of pensioners. All
I can say is that I am pleased and reassured that pensions
generally are a reserved matter. We have been able to increase
the state pension, last year by 10.1% and this coming year by
8.5%. We have pressed hard on promoting pension credit for poorer
pensioners. We had a cost of living payment. Because it is a
reserved matter, this Government were able to provide £300 to
pensioners last November, alongside their winter fuel payments.
As a consequence of that—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. The hon. Lady has asked a question. Please listen to the
answer.
I was merely pointing out the fact that we stand four-square
behind pensioners across the United Kingdom to support them. That
is why under this Government there are 200,000 fewer pensioners
in poverty, after housing costs, than there were in 2010.
(Stroud) (Con)
WASPI women across my Stroud constituency have campaigned
consistently and constructively. I have grown very fond of them
as we have discussed the subject over the years. As the Secretary
of State knows, at the heart of the issue are women saying that
they were left unable to plan or that their plans for the future
were scuppered, so the focus should be on laying out a timetable
as soon as possible. The issue of compensation is key to many of
these women, who will have read the report. It is right that the
Secretary of State and his Department look through the report in
detail, but will he lay out a timetable, tell these women what is
and is not possible, and manage their expectations as soon as
possible, because they have waited?
My hon. Friend is a member of the Work and Pensions Committee and
I welcome her question. I reassure her that there will be no
undue delay. I thank her for recognising that we need to look at
these matters with great care. That does not mean coming forward
with some of the things that the Scottish National party may wish
us to do on a Monday, given that the report landed with us only
last Thursday.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Sir (East Ham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chair of the Women and
Equalities Committee, as I do, that those affected should not
have to wait for the outcome of a Select Committee inquiry before
learning the Government’s response? The equalisation of the state
pension age was legislated for in 1995, giving 15 years’ notice
to those affected. The 2011 changes, which accelerated the
process, gave much less than 10 years’ notice to those affected.
Is one of the lessons about what has gone wrong that we must
ensure major changes of this kind provide at least 10 years’
notice, or preferably 15 years’ notice, before those changes take
effect?
The right hon. Gentleman raises the potential role of Select
Committees in these matters. As the Chair of the Work and
Pensions Committee, he would have the authority to implement such
ideas, if he were minded to do so. However, it is important that
I and my Department seriously consider the findings in the report
before we come to our conclusions, and that we then come to the
House to present those conclusions. That is the most important
point.
(Amber Valley) (Con)
Having seen the report, I think this issue has gone on long
enough and we now need to choose a compensation scheme and get it
finished. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government
will have made their mind up before the autumn fiscal event, so
that we can see it set out by that date and know how much the
costs will be?
Whether there will be an autumn statement at all, and the date
thereof, is not within my remit—indeed, I am not certain whether
an autumn statement is pencilled in for any particular date, or
otherwise. The most important thing is that we recognise—this
message should go out loud and clear from the Dispatch Box
today—that there should be no undue delay in coming to the
appropriate conclusions on this matter.
(Battersea) (Lab)
The WASPI scandal has been a huge injustice for millions of
women, including women in my constituency. The Secretary of State
has said that he wants to continue to look in detail at the
findings of the report, but surely he should be able to make an
unambiguous commitment to compensation for these women. The
ombudsman had to take the rare step of laying this before
Parliament, due to the Department for Work and Pensions refusing
to comply. Will the Secretary of State today set out a timeline
for when he will come back to this House and say how he intends
to ensure that these women are compensated fully?
The hon. Lady is attempting to draw me into coming to premature
conclusions on some of the findings in the report, which I am
afraid I not going to do for the reasons I have already given.
Once again on the issue of timing, there will be no undue
delay.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on state
pension inequality for women.
(Waveney) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. The
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is itself WASPI,
having been conceived in the 1950s. Does my right hon. Friend
agree that a failure by Government to comply with its
recommendations would be almost completely unprecedented over the
past 70 years, and would in effect drive a coach and horses
through an integral part of our system of democratic checks and
balances? With that in mind, will he confirm that his Department
will work in full haste with Parliament to agree a mechanism for
remedy? Will he outline the work he is carrying out to address
further concerns that have been raised over systematic failure by
the DWP over several decades to properly communicate future
pension changes?
At the heart of this matter is the imperative to ensure that we
fully and carefully examine the findings contained in the report.
I will not be drawn today on where we may end up in respect of
those findings, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will engage
fully and constructively with Parliament on these matters.
(South Shields) (Lab)
Women born in the 1950s entered into a contract with the state,
but the coalition Government reneged on that, denying them their
pensions. In their fight for justice, thousands have died. Since
the ombudsman’s report, over 100 have passed away, and many
continue to live in poverty. Shamefully, the Government are now
delaying action on the ombudsman’s findings, and today have
remained silent about proper compensation. Will the Secretary of
State apologise for their long wait for justice?
On the Pensions Act 2011, as the hon. Lady will know from the
report, the window that has been particularly examined and on
which these considerations turn is 2005 to 2007—a time when the
Labour party was in office. But on a general and non-partisan
point, my view is that we owe it to all women who were born in
the 1950s to properly look at the report in detail, as I have
described, and at the same time to engage with Parliament in an
appropriate way.
Sir (Kenilworth and Southam)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend is correct to refer to the complexity of
this situation. One aspect of that complexity is that these women
have suffered the loss of an opportunity to plan appropriately
for their futures. That is the consequence of the
maladministration that the ombudsman has identified, and it will,
of course, be different for each individual. Can he say anything
about the work that his Department will now do to think about the
appropriate remedy in such diverse circumstances? Will he also
say, in supporting what my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney
() put to him, that
maladministration must have consequences and therefore it is
important for the Government to recognise, on behalf of previous
Governments, that that maladministration must lead to some form
of remedy?
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to refer, as I have
done, to the complexities around this issue. He is understandably
attempting to draw me into past comments on some of the findings
in the report, which, for the reasons I have given, I will not be
doing this afternoon. I reassure him that, whatever the
conclusions or findings in the report, as I said in my statement,
when these matters went to the Court of Appeal, the conclusion
was that the High Court could treat as a matter of fact that
“there has been adequate and reasonable notification given by
the…Department over a number of years.”
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
Returning to maladministration, the Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman’s stage 1 report found clear maladministration
in 2021 in the way that the DWP communicated those changes and
that it did not pay attention to its own research showing that
1950s-born women did not know about the changes. Almost three
years on, the DWP has not publicly accepted those findings. Will
the Minister finally admit to the DWP’s failings that
short-changed hundreds of thousands of 1950s WASPI women?
Without being drawn into too much detail around the report, there
is clearly an important distinction between those matters that
have been found to be maladministration and those that have found
to be maladministration and led to injustice. Setting that apart,
as I have said previously, I do not think it is right for me
today to start dissecting elements of the report and some of the
conclusions that have been arrived at. We will go away and look
very carefully at these matters and then engage with Parliament
appropriately.
(Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity with which he has
set out the history of this issue. He will understand that my
constituents who were affected wish, quite reasonably, to have a
similar degree of clarity on the next steps and the timescale,
and it is my job to communicate to him today their strength of
feeling on that. I understand that he will not be able to set out
that timescale today, but can he reassure the House that he has
in his mind a timescale for these next steps?
As I have said, there should be no undue delay, but my hon.
Friend is absolutely right that clarity is what is required. That
is why I am stressing the point that clarity comes with careful
consideration.
(Wirral West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all WASPI campaigners and stand in solidarity
with them. I need also to declare that I am somebody who was born
in the 1950s. The treatment of the 1950s-born women in relation
to changes in women’s state pension has led to great hardship for
many. One woman in my constituency struggled to feed herself and
had to sell her home as a result. The impact has been
devastating. It is estimated that some 270,000 WASPI women have
died since the start of the campaign in 2015 and that another
dies every 13 minutes. I note the Minister’s comments that there
will be no undue delay. Will he return to this House immediately
after recess with a firm commitment to fast and fair
compensation?
I think we owe it to all of those to whom the hon. Lady refers to
act without undue delay—that is a commitment that I have made—and
to look at these matters extremely carefully and make sure that
we allow time to do that effectively.
(Bracknell) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement, and am very grateful for it. I know
that the Secretary of State is under pressure this afternoon, but
having received a lot of correspondence from my Bracknell
constituents, as other Members have from theirs, let me ask a
very objective question: does he have a personal message for
those seeking a definitive outcome?
I think my statement is the message. We recognise that these are
complicated issues. We have collaborated fully with the inquiry,
to the satisfaction of the chief executive officer of the
ombudsman. We will study the report’s findings very carefully,
and engage with Parliament constructively, as we have done with
the ombudsman.
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
The Royal Society for the Relief of Indigent Gentlewomen of
Scotland sounds entirely otherworldly and quite funny, but that
was not the case for the WASPI woman who came to my surgery in
2016. She retired expecting to get her state pension at 60, and
had to apply to the society for relief. She had to sell her home
because she could not afford her retirement, as she did not
receive her pension. What remedies for compensation do the
Government consider suitable for that constituent, and others of
mine, and when will they receive them? The DWP has known about
the issue for years and years.
The example that the hon. Lady gives once again underlines in my
mind the importance of proceeding with great diligence and
looking at the findings of the report in great detail. As we all
know, we received that report on Thursday; it is now Monday.
Given its length, and the complexity of the issues under
consideration, it is not unreasonable for us to take the time to
look closely at its conclusions.
(Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I add my voice to those calling for an urgent announcement of a
redress scheme in response to the report. The Secretary of State
rightly pointed out that the actions between 2005 and 2007 did
not happen on his watch, or under any Conservative Government,
but if he delays, he will stop being part of the solution and
start to become part of the problem. When he introduces his
redress scheme, he will need all the understanding and good will
on both sides of the House that he can muster to deal with the
undoubted complexities of distinguishing between the different
kinds and levels of indirect loss in the report, so speed is
vital.
As my hon. Friend points out, the timing is important. I have
made the commitment that we will proceed without undue delay.
(Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Millions of women have suffered an injustice, including more than
200,000 in Wales and 4,000 in my constituency of Cynon Valley.
While much of the ombudsman’s report is welcome, the compensation
remedy is insufficient—indeed, it is insulting. In 2019, the
Labour party pledged an average payment of £15,500. It is
affordable, and the Government have saved in the region of £200
billion since the equalisation of the state pension age, yet they
still have not pledged anything at all. Will the Minister please
set a specific timeline so that we can have an urgent
parliamentary process for MPs to set a compensation scheme that
will give fair, appropriate and fast compensation to these
women?
On the timing, I have now given this reply from the Dispatch Box
on several occasions: there will be no undue delay. On the
specific matter that the hon. Lady raises relating to remedy,
that is one of the findings within the report that, along with
all the others, we will of course consider very carefully.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to highlight the commitment to
the triple lock, that the state pension will raise by some £900
this year, that there are fewer people in pensioner poverty than
ever before, and that, predictably, the failures here happened
under a previous Government. Nevertheless, does he accept that
hardship in principle has been caused, both to WASPI women on the
Isle of Wight and nationally, and that a solution, while it
clearly needs to be affordable, is needed to right a wrong that
has taken place?
Reaching the clarity that my hon. Friend would like requires us
to have a close and careful look at the report, as I have been
setting out. We will do that as quickly as we can—we will not
introduce any undue delays—and consult Parliament in an
appropriate manner, as we did with the ombudsman.
(Livingston) (SNP)
It is not that difficult. The WASPI women have been screwed over
by the state and made to wait for years. I understand that the
ombudsman process had to be undertaken because the Government
made that happen, but they could have faced up to the reality
much sooner. Can the Secretary of State guarantee the 6,500 WASPI
women in my constituency and those across the UK that he will not
kick the can down the road past the next election and pass the
buck to the Labour party, which cannot make a promise about this
matter either? It is not good enough to stand in solidarity but
take no action.
On the question of time, I have made the position extremely
clear. On the question of the report having had to gestate for
five years, there was a delay of around two years because of the
judicial review that went on in the middle of that process, so to
suggest that the Government have in any way been holding things
up is not fair or accurate. Indeed, as I have said the ombudsman
chief executive has highlighted the good level of co-operation
that there has been with my Department.
(Eastbourne) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming so swiftly to the House
in the wake of the ombudsman’s important report, which, as other
hon. Members have said, requires a response. I pay tribute to the
4,000 WASPI women in my constituency who have been affected by
the change. Although I welcome the important pension reforms that
outlined, of which we can be proud, it is worth remembering that
68% of women born in the 1950s have relied on the state pension,
as opposed to 44% of their male counterparts, because of baked-in
inequalities that they experienced in much younger years: they
started work before equalities legislation; they were not able to
join pension schemes back in the day; and they made very definite
choices about their caring responsibilities. For all those
reasons, I see real injustice in this case. When he talks us
through how this will be dealt with in Parliament, I hope to hear
that there will be a role for individual MPs who have worked
closely with their WASPI women to make representations on their
behalf.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to engage
closely with Parliament, as we have done to date and with the
ombudsman. She quite reasonably raises gender pension gaps. This
Government have brought in and encouraged automatic enrolment—we
have consulted on further changes that we are considering —which
has led to a narrowing of that gap as it relates to private
pensions. There is always more to do, but we are definitely
serious about making further progress.
(Slough) (Lab)
The WASPI women in Slough and across our country have been
campaigning courageously and consistently for their rights for
years. It is the Government’s duty to set out exactly how they
will help those women and deliver justice. Given that someone’s
entitlement to the state pension depends on how many years they
have paid national insurance contributions, what will happen,
under the Chancellor’s plans to abolish NICs, to those who are
yet to retire? Will they still receive the state pension to which
they have been contributing, or will their entitlements
change?
The hon. Gentleman is a very assiduous and sensible person, and
will know that party politics are at play in this issue. The
Chancellor has been extremely clear that it is an aspiration to
further bring down the level of national insurance across
time—across several years, maybe even going beyond the next
Parliament. He is quite right to say that, because we are a party
that fundamentally believes in low tax.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
Given the demographics in North Norfolk, I probably have one of
the most impacted constituencies in the country: over 5,000 WASPI
women have been impacted there. We need to be sensible. We all
recognise the financial climate that we are dealing with in this
country, but the Secretary of State is a very decent man, and
this weekend, the Prime Minister intimated that we have always
tried to right injustices in this country. WASPI women will be
watching this debate; can the Secretary of State at least throw
them a lifeline from the Dispatch Box, and give some sort of
commitment that we in this country will do everything we possibly
can to support as many WASPI women who have been impacted as we
can?
The important point is that we must carefully consider the report
in its entirety—not just one aspect of it, but all aspects. I
have undertaken to the House to do that without undue delay.
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
The ombudsperson was established to decide when things were not
necessarily illegal, but had been done in a way that involved
malpractice and was wrong, and to decide when a person in the
middle needed to come forward and say, “You need to sort this
out.” That is exactly what the ombudsperson has now said: their
judgment is clear that maladministration happened. There was a
question as to whether what was done was illegal or not; in the
event, it was not. Rather than hiding behind court judgments,
will the Minister apologise on behalf of the Department for the
maladministration? Also, will he at least commit to a remedy? I
am not saying what that remedy has to be, but will he give
reassurance that a remedy will be found? Those are two easy
things that he should be able to do now.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are hiding behind the court
cases. I have explained the relevance of those cases and the
conclusions to which both the High Court and the Court of Appeal
came in 2019 and 2020. We are not hiding behind anything; in
fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because I read out the quote
earlier, on Thursday 21 March—last Thursday—the chief executive
of the ombudsman said on Sky News:
“The Government, the DWP, completely co-operated with our report,
with our investigation, and over the period of time we have been
working they have provided us with the evidence that we asked
for.”
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
WASPI women in my constituency have campaigned relentlessly for
many years, and I pay tribute to all of them, particularly Rosie
Dickson, who has done so much at various events around Glasgow,
and who came down to London to put her case directly in
Parliament. WASPI women are watching this debate, and when the
Minister says that the Government will carefully consider things,
they hear, “More delay.” What they hear is that they will not get
the money to which they are entitled, and that too many more
women will die before they see a penny from this Government. When
will they receive their money?
Given that the report was published as recently as last Thursday,
it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that I should have come to
this Dispatch Box with a fully formed set of proposals of the
sort that the hon. Lady may wish for. I think that what her
constituents and others want is a Government who look at the
report very carefully, give great consideration to the complex
issues involved and the report’s findings, and engage closely
with Parliament, exactly as we did with the ombudsman.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
The Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even
acknowledge the injustice done to thousands of innocent
postmasters. This, too, is an incredible injustice. Millions of
women born in the 1950s have been betrayed. Some 3.5 million
women have been affected; one dies every 13 minutes, and we have
been in this Chamber for an hour. Some 28,000 people have signed
the letter from the WASPI campaign to the Leader of the House
asking for an urgent debate and series of votes on compensation
options, including that proposed by the all-party parliamentary
group on this issue. This injustice cannot carry on any
longer.
The Secretary of State has sought to avoid answering the question
of when a decision will be made. “In due course” is not good
enough, and neither is “without undue delay”. When will it
happen? When will we get a debate on the issue, and a vote on
proper compensation packages?
The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he
should not ask me questions at the Dispatch Box about when
debates may or may not occur; those matters are typically handled
by the usual channels, including those in his party and mine. It
is quite extraordinary that he should try to get me to set out a
timetable for debates. Many of these things will be a matter for
Parliament, rather than the Government. However, he is right to
raise Horizon, and I am very proud of the fact that this
Government have acted at speed on that, and brought forward
legislation to make sure that people get the moneys and
reparations that they deserve.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
At the beginning of the Secretary of State’s statement, he said
something that is clearly wrong. He said that women clearly had
not “lost out”. They have. Thousands in my constituency have lost
out financially, through no fault of their own. They planned for
their retirement on the basis of out-of-date information. They
were then in effect penalised for taking on caring
responsibilities—for providing the best kind of childcare for
their grandchildren, and allowing their children to work and pay
taxes. All that was disrupted by the collective failure of the
state. As has been said, many have died before justice was
delivered.
For years, those of us who sought justice for the WASPI women
have met the same response, which was that we had to wait for the
ombudsman’s report. We now have the report, so will the Secretary
of State now comply, apologise to the women, and pay compensation
to them, as recommended in the report?
The hon. Gentleman refers to my mention of there having been no
direct loss; that was a conclusion drawn by the ombudsman in his
report. As to how quickly we can proceed, I simply remind him
that the report was published on Thursday, and it is Monday
afternoon. These are complex matters, and it is right and proper
that they be considered in detail very carefully, and that there
be appropriate engagement with Parliament, exactly as there was
with the ombudsman.
(Birmingham, Hall Green)
(Lab)
In my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green, I have 4,760 WASPI
women, who have been campaigning tirelessly for pension justice.
Given that the report has now been published, will the Secretary
of State commit to a timeline that will make sure that they are
adequately and swiftly compensated for the harms that they have
suffered?
As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is a question that in
various forms has now been asked a dozen or more times. The
answer will always be consistent: there is no desire to delay
matters, and there will be no undue delays in our
deliberations.
(Islington North) (Ind)
There cannot be a Member of this House who has not met women
affected by the issue or WASPI campaigners, and who has not been
moved by their awful stories, and the pain that they have been
through as a result of the maladministration by successive
Governments. Anyone watching this lengthy, convoluted statement
from the Secretary of State will be left confused about what will
happen now. Could he tell us, in words of one syllable, when
women who are victims of this maladministration can receive the
compensation that they deserve?
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is just
another version of the same question about timing, and I have
given a very clear answer on that.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
I have heard many Ministers say from the Dispatch Box that they
are working at pace, or that there will be no undue delay in
dealing with scandals. This is a real opportunity for Parliament.
The ombudsman laid this report before Parliament for a very good
reason: he did not think that the Department for Work and
Pensions would accept the recommendations on maladministration.
If a Back Bencher tabled an amendment to a Government Bill that
sought to implement the ombudsman’s recommendations, the
Government would support it, wouldn’t they?
It would be a little bit of a stretch to comment on, let alone
support, an unknown amendment to an unknown Bill.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
The WASPI campaign has asked me to emphasise its annoyance about
how often Government Ministers, when talking about these issues,
attempt to muddy the waters by referring back to the unsuccessful
litigation to reverse the increase to the state pension age, or
to claim direct discrimination. That was not litigation by the
official WASPI campaign, and I am sure that its members were
annoyed to hear a senior Labour Front Bencher doing the same
thing on the radio last night. Will the Minister take this chance
to assure the WASPI campaigners from the Dispatch Box that going
forward, Government Ministers will not attempt to muddy the
waters by referring back to now irrelevant litigation, and will
instead focus on how to implement the ombudsman’s
recommendations?
The hon. and learned Lady will know about legal matters. I do not
think that I can accept that the litigation, particularly in the
High Court and the Court of Appeal, is just not relevant,
especially as it pertained to the matters under debate.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, this report has
been five years in the offing. His Department has known that it
was coming for an awful long time. It must also have known that
it was possible that compensation would be recommended. I am sure
that he runs his Department in a prudent fashion, and will have
set aside contingency funding for that eventuality. Can he tell
us how much?
Once again, the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into forming
conclusions prematurely about a complex report that needs a great
deal of study and consideration. That is what we will give
it.
(East Renfrewshire)
(SNP)
These 1950s women have been shockingly let down by Westminster.
They have fought on this issue for years and years. Instead of
the Secretary of State properly acknowledging the failings that
the ombudsman highlighted and doing “the right thing”, as the
ombudsman’s chief executive officer says, it feels as though he
has come here today with precisely nothing to say. It feels as
though he is trying to gaslight the WASPI women. It is a
disgrace, and shame on the Labour party for going along with this
charade. This terrible, protracted injustice has devastated the
lives of so many women. It is time to give them the justice that
they deserve. Give them their compensation now, before many more
of them die waiting.
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have taken this entire
situation extremely seriously. The House will have heard the
remarks by the ombudsman’s CEO about the quality of my
Department’s engagement with the ombudsman. I have also said that
we provided more than 1,000 pages of evidence to the
investigation. I have reassured the House that we will carefully
consider the findings of the report, will not unduly delay our
response, and will engage appropriately with Parliament, exactly
as we have done with the ombudsman.
Dame (Llanelli) (Lab)
I must first declare my interest as a 1950s woman. The Secretary
of State absolutely knows that real hardship was caused for some
women in this age group in 2011 when the former Chancellor,
George Osborne—backed by Conservative and Lib Dem
Members—fast-forwarded the changes. As the ombudsman said,
maladministration in the communication of the state pension age
resulted in claimants losing opportunities to prepare. Women
affected will be very disappointed by the Secretary of State’s
statement, especially as the first stage of the ombudsman’s
report in 2021 highlighted DWP failings. Can he please be more
precise than saying “no undue delay”? In which month can we
expect a proper Government response?
That is once again a question about the timing, and I have given
a clear response on that. I have given an assurance to the House
that there will be no undue delay in our approach to these
matters. That is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question.
(Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
(SNP)
May I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to read the
room? Let us remember that the ombudsman has said there has been
maladministration. There is consensus across the Chamber that
compensation should be paid. This is about women who paid
national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension, who
were hit with the bombshell that their pension was being
deferred—in some cases, by up to six years—with only 15 months’
written notice. Can we imagine what would happen in this place if
it was announced that private sector pensions were being put back
by six years? Rightly, there would be outrage, and there should
be outrage about what happened to the WASPI women.
This was an entitlement taken away from women, who had a
reasonable expectation of retiring denied to them. The Government
should have recognised the failings and should have compensated
those 3.8 million women years ago. Now that we have the
determination of maladministration, let us ensure that this is
not another Horizon or contaminated blood story and that the
Government come back at pace with firm proposals that the House
can discuss after the Easter recess.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Can people focus on their questions, please? That would be
really useful.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am fully aware of the
reports’ findings. As he will know, they raise many questions,
which we need to look at carefully. We will not delay in so
doing, but that is why I have come to assure the House that we
will do exactly that and engage with Parliament in an appropriate
way.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
This interim statement felt like a non-statement. It spoke about
clarity but offered none at all to WASPI women or Members of the
House. I repeat what many across the Chamber have said: on what
day and in what month can we expect a full statement? WASPI women
up and down the country expect that full statement.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question to which by now I have
probably responded two dozen times. The answer remains the same:
we will look at these matters extremely carefully and diligently,
which is what everybody who has an interest in them would expect
us to do. The report was published as recently as Thursday, and
it is now Monday. We will look at these issues very carefully
indeed, and there will be no undue delay. We will ensure that we
interact with Parliament in an appropriate fashion, as we did
with the ombudsman.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State talks about time, but it is nearly a
decade since the start of the WASPI campaign, which has included
rallies, protests, court cases, thousands of meetings to lobby
MPs, and 273,000 women dying. Those who remain can perhaps see
some light at the end of the tunnel. I say “some light”, because
the ombudsman should have gone further both on the impact that
DWP malpractice has had and on the recommended compensation.
However, it looks like that light is actually a train, with the
Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor in control. After all that
those women—that includes my constituent, who was one of the test
cases in the report and at times has treated the campaign like a
full-time job—have gone through, is the Secretary of State really
going to ask them to wait just a little longer and then break
convention and ignore the ombudsman’s findings?
Given that we have not yet responded to the findings of the
ombudsman, for the reasons that I gave—this needs to be done in a
diligent and careful manner—I am not sure that the hon. Member’s
assertion holds water. The report was five years in the making.
It covers highly complex matters, and many questions are raised
as a consequence. We will look at those questions and those
findings extremely carefully and come to the House without undue
delay while engaging with the House in an appropriate way, which
is what we did with the ombudsman.
(Salford and Eccles)
(Lab)
The report’s central finding of fact is that women born in the
1950s could not make informed decisions about their finances and
that their sense of “personal autonomy and financial control” was
“diminished”, with tens of thousands plunged into poverty. The
issue now is not whether those women faced injustice, because the
report makes it clear that they did, that they are entitled to
urgent compensation from the Government, and that Parliament must
“identify a mechanism” for providing appropriate redress. Will
the Secretary of State allay my concerns that he is not proposing
to question the ombudsman’s findings and that, rather, after the
Easter recess, he will return to set out appropriate mechanisms
for redress that we can debate in the House?
We are considering the findings, which need to be considered in
their entirety in order to come to a view.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
I pay tribute to the WASPI campaigners in Glasgow whom I met on
International Women’s Day at the Mary Barbour statue, including
the great Kathy McDonald, a fantastic constituent. Surely, the
Secretary of State accepts that it is unacceptable in 2024 that
women continue to experience inequality in lifetime savings.
Women would need to work an additional 19 years to have the same
pension savings as men. Inequalities in lifetime savings, a
gender pension gap and maladministration of state pension age
changes: this is a triple whammy for 1950s-born women. When will
they get justice and equal treatment?
The hon. Gentleman concludes by asking the same question that has
been asked many times. There will be no undue delay. We will look
at the issues, including some of the points that he has raised,
in the round, looking at the entirety of the report and all its
points and conclusions. He will know that we have taken many
steps to help to increase the pension amounts received by the
women involved, including the auto-enrolment reforms that we have
brought forward. In the private pension space, the reforms have
shown a dramatic improvement in the level of pension provision
for women up and down the country.
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
The report is absolutely clear that the DWP’s systemic failure is
that it did not even draw upon and learn from its own research
into the failure of communication with those women. In addition,
it did not investigate properly and respond to the complaints.
That is straightforward in the report. Perhaps as a warning, I
say to the Secretary of State that the anger out there will be
not that he has not come up with a scheme immediately, but that
he has not even acknowledged the failings of his own Department.
That is why the report recommends that Parliament deal with this
matter. Members of this House share the same feelings as the
ombudsman and the WASPI women: we have no confidence in the
Department for Work and Pensions to resolve its basic failure of
decades ago.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to one part of the report’s
findings, where the ombudsman found maladministration but did not
find injustice. The point that I have made to others in the House
is that we need to look at this report properly. It is a report
of 100 pages, to which my Department provided 1,000 pages of
evidence, and which we received on Thursday. The only thing I can
do responsibly is come to the House and make it clear that we
will act without undue delay and interact with Parliament in an
appropriate manner, exactly as we did with the ombudsman.
(Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
(SNP)
Incredibly sadly, Margaret Meikle and Morag Syne are just two of
a significant number of women in my constituency and elsewhere
who have died while enduring years of prevarication and inaction
by successive Governments in relation to the maladministration of
their pensions. It is estimated that 40,000 women have died each
year who may have been eligible for compensation. Nationally,
270,000 women have died without ever receiving an apology,
justice or compensation. Will the Secretary of State commit to
giving due consideration to compensating not only eligible women
still living, but the relatives of those who have died while
awaiting justice, when this comes back to the House?
I listened to the hon. Gentleman extremely carefully, and I think
we owe it to all those to whom he referred and those who may be
in a similar situation to take this matter extremely seriously.
We will look at it very carefully, and we will come to
appropriate conclusions while ensuring that we interact with
Parliament in an appropriate way, very much as we did in our
interactions with the ombudsman.
(Bradford East) (Lab)
I am not sure why the Secretary of State has come to this House
to tell us and WASPI women nothing apart from that he is
considering the report. He keeps talking about its complexities,
but one simple finding at its heart is that this Government and
this Parliament must remedy the grave injustices against the
thousands of WASPI women in my constituency, and up and down this
country. Hon. Members from across this House have asked the
Secretary of State quite reasonably for a timescale, but he
refuses to commit and uses the words “undue delay.” Will he at
least accept that every time a Minister stands up and says “undue
delay” or “due process” they really mean that they have no
intention of addressing the problem, and are saving face and
kicking the can down the road?
No, I do not accept that.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The ombudsman’s report
has made recommendations based on maladministration. The 1950s
women were misled and not notified of their rights. That is a
serious issue. Many people have contacted me; one told me that
nearly 300,000 women have passed away already. Women continue to
pass away each day without seeing a single penny. Let us not
forget those who suffer physical and mental disabilities after a
lifetime of work and childrearing. Many grandmothers have gone on
to care for elderly parents or provide unpaid support so that
their daughters and sons can return to work in support of the UK
economy. Time is not on the side of the WASPI women. They need
restitution, apologies and compensation. Does the Secretary of
State agree with my constituent’s suggestion that the Government
agree urgently to pay a reasonable lump sum, followed by an
increase in their pension payments until the deficit is recouped,
thereby making it easier to balance the public purse?
I certainly accept that we need to proceed in a manner that does
not delay matters, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has
given. We owe it to the people to whom he referred to proceed
without undue delay, by very carefully considering the report in
its entirety, looking very closely at its findings. I am
satisfied, as is the chief executive officer of the ombudsman,
that the engagement between my Department and the ombudsman was
full and complete. We will continue to proceed on that basis,
working closely with Parliament in the same spirit that we worked
with the ombudsman.
(Easington) (Lab)
To say the Secretary of State will have disappointed the 5,000
WASPI women in my constituency and the many tens of thousands
across the north-east would be an understatement. Frankly, the
Minister’s response is shameful. I take issue with what he said
about the complexity of the report. He said that it has only been
five days since the 100-page report was published. I am not a
speed reader, but I reckon that is 20 pages a day. The issues
raised are not bolts out of the blue; the WASPI women have been
actively campaigning for more than 10 years, highlighting the
issues and the potential remedies. The response we have had will
not wash with the country. The Secretary of State says that there
are 200,000 fewer pensioners in poverty, but 270,000 WASPI women
have died waiting for justice. How many more will die before he
finally comes along and implements those recommendations in
full?
The answer on timing is the same one that I have given
consistently throughout this statement. I have been asked that
probably three dozen times, and the answer remains the same. This
is a complex report—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will allow
me to continue, that is not, as far as I am aware, a matter of
dispute, even between the Government and the Opposition. We both
accept that it is a complex report and that we need to look very
carefully at the findings in order to come to conclusions. That
is exactly what we will do.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Despite how the Minister might wish to spin it, the ombudsman’s
report was absolutely damning, totally vindicating the WASPI
women and their campaign. Too many people thought—indeed,
fervently hoped—that they would give up and go away, but they
picked the wrong fight with the wrong women. I congratulate Ann
Greer and the Argyll & Isles WASPI women on never giving up
the fight. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun
() has a private Member’s Bill
that would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals
for a compensation scheme for WASPI women. The vehicle is there,
Minister. Will the Government now work with my hon. Friend and
support his private Member’s Bill, so we can bring this matter to
a conclusion as swiftly as possible?
I am not familiar with all the details of the private Member’s
Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Whether the Government
decide to support a particular Bill is clearly a matter for the
usual channels and Government business managers, not for me at
the Dispatch Box at this time.
(Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
The WASPI website has a grim counter of affected women’s deaths
and of money saved by the Treasury. The current figures are
273,000-plus women and well over £4 billion. They are rising by
the minute. How far have the consequences of the Government’s
2022 disastrous mini-Budget affected their thinking on this
matter? If the Secretary of State will not commit to full level 6
compensation, as the ombudsman recommends, what does he have to
offer Linda Gregory, my constituency born in 1953? She “did the
right thing,” as he said. She did her sums, got her forecasts and
was repeatedly assured by the DWP and HMRC that she had
contributions to retire at 60 in order to look after her ailing
mum—before this surprise was sprung on her, which has so far cost
her £40,000.
With great respect to the hon. Lady, her question perfectly
exemplifies why it is important to look at the detail of the
report. She refers to the ombudsman recommending the full level 6
compensation, but it is actually level 4, the range between
£1,000 and £2,950. I am afraid that that piece of information was
simply inaccurate.
(East Lothian) (Alba)
Sadly, we have had a reprise of known facts, not the resolution
of a manifest wrong. Governments frequently have to address the
faults and failings of their predecessors, of whatever political
hue. That is called the responsibility of being in office and it
is part of the privilege of governing. Equally, we have to
remember that when there is an institutional failure that goes
across political parties and Government institutions, we have
independent bodies, such as an ombudsman, to address it. In those
circumstances, will the Minister first of all accept that there
has been a manifest wrong and injustice, and secondly, will he
commit that he will not, under any circumstances, seek to
undermine the decision of the ombudsman or the direction of
travel he has embarked upon?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a very
specific purpose for an ombudsman, as indeed there is for this
ombudsman. What I think is unreasonable is to take the step in
logic from that to saying that one should just simply, within a
matter of hours, stand up and accept everything the ombudsman has
put forward. What we have quite rightly said, and what I am
saying at the Dispatch Box today, is that we will consider these
matters, the findings, the circumstances and so on in very great
detail, in order to come to the appropriate decision.
(Dundee West) (SNP)
WASPI women in my constituency simply cannot wait. In fact, as we
have heard across the House, there is not a single constituency
where WASPI women can wait. There is a simple reason for that:
40,000 of them are dying every year. Over a quarter of a million
have died over the 10-year campaign. Not once have they had an
apology or received any justice —and they have certainly received
no compensation. When the PHSO report was published, both the UK
Government and the Labour party deliberately failed to answer and
fully guarantee that full justice and full compensation would be
delivered to the WASPI women. The simple question, which the
Secretary of State has failed to answer so far, is this: can he
give us a timeframe by which he will deliver an apology, justice
and compensation, and can it be before the next general
election?
The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber, I think, since the
beginning of the statement—I am sure he has; he heard the
statement, hence he is asking a question—and he will know that
the question he asked has been asked now probably a couple of
dozen times. The answer is the same. [Interruption.] He chunters
from a sedentary position, but the answer is just the same, which
is that the responsible thing to do is to look at this highly
complex matter. The report was published on Thursday. It is now
Monday, early evening. It is not unreasonable to expect the
Government—and indeed Parliament, because of the way the report
has been laid before Parliament—to look at the detail of the
report. As a Department, we gave around 1,000 pages of evidence
that informed the report. There are some very important findings
within it and to do it justice, we need to look at it
carefully.
(Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
(SNP)
Some 6,900 WASPI women in my constituency, some of whom have lost
out by as much as £60,000 and many of them in dire need of
compensation, will have found little encouragement in the
Minister’s statement. Is it this Government’s policy to dither,
delay and deny justice until the 1950s-born women have died
off?
I can give a very short answer to that: absolutely not.
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
The WASPI campaign has been conducted with great dignity. They
have lobbied and informed all of us. Will the outgoing Government
and the incoming Government show these women the respect they are
due and commit to paying compensation? I am not even asking for a
timetable—just a commitment to paying compensation. Before the
Minister says, “I only got the report last Thursday,” I point out
that if he had listened to the PHSO evidence to the Public
Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, he would
have known that the writing was clearly on the wall and that
compensation was going to be in the report.
What I am not really clear about is why the hon. Gentleman is
urging me and the Government to draw a premature conclusion on
the basis of— [Interruption.] No, it would be premature. As he
points out, the report arrived on Thursday. It is now Monday,
very early evening. It is complicated, so it is absolutely right
and proper that we look at it very carefully and in great detail.
It is only right and proper that we do that for the people who
are concerned with this matter. That is precisely what we will
do. We will act without undue delay. We will make sure that we
engage with this House in an appropriate fashion, as we did with
the ombudsman himself.
(Cumbernauld, Kilsyth
and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The expression “Justice delayed is justice denied” has never
seemed more appropriate, with so many thousands of WASPI women
waiting for justice to be delivered and dying in the process. It
is not just the five years waiting for the ombudsman’s report,
but the years before that jumping through the hoops of the DWP
complaints process and the independent case examiner. As well as
delivering swift compensation, will the Secretary of State’s
Government look at fixing the system that has delayed, for the
best part of a decade, the delivery of justice for WASPI
women?
We will look closely at the report and we will, no doubt, draw
many conclusions as a result of that process of careful
examination of the findings and the points made within the
report. My commitment to the House is that we will do that
without undue delay and that we will also engage appropriately
with Parliament as part of that approach.
|
