PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation - 15 January 2025 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

We are massively oversubscribed. It is plain that we are not going to get everybody in. I remind those who wish to speak that they should bob. I also ask that, voluntarily, Members restrain themselves to two minutes. If we do that, we will get most people in, but not everybody.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by changes to the State Pension age.

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this Chamber and, as I often do, to draw a very substantial crowd. The genesis of betrayal is trust—the kind of trust that underpins the democratic legitimacy of Parliament and on which the authority of the Executive is founded, and the kind of trust that our constituents, when they send us to this place to exercise our judgment on their behalf, rely upon. Their faith in us is that we will honour what we say we will do and that when we make pledges, they are not empty pledges but are meaningful. When trust is breached and broken, the whole of that legitimacy is undermined.

That is precisely what has happened in the case of the so-called WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. I will use the acronym, because it has become a familiar one to any of us who have taken an interest in this matter, as I have over some time, and as have the public. This campaign is a campaign for no less than justice, to restore trust.

The right hon. Member is speaking eloquently about trust. Does he agree that it is really important for the Government to help us to have trust in institutions such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman by adhering to decisions made by it?

Although that intervention was not orchestrated by me or choreographed by either of us, it leads me neatly to my next point, because there is an ethical case to be made of the kind the hon. Lady describes, there is a constitutional case to be made, and there is a practical case to be made. In the short time available to me—I know that many others want to contribute to the debate—I will try to make all three.

First, the ethical case is, exactly as the hon. Lady said, about honouring the pledges that were made and fulfilling rightful expectations. Not all expectations and hopes are well founded, but when people have worked all their lives and been told that at the end of their working life, they will be paid a pension at a particular time, it is not unreasonable for them to believe that that will come to pass.

Given that the Government response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report said that a compensation scheme would be “impractical”, with “significant challenges” and the potential for “unjustified payments”, and that there were significant concerns about the robustness of the Department for Work and Pensions research in 2006, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is untenable, given the stark contrast with the way that sub-postmasters were treated?

I do agree, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I shall be speaking later in my remarks about the ombudsman’s report and findings, which will bring me to the constitutional matter I raised about the nature of accountability and scrutiny and how Governments are held to account, and whether ombudsmen are meaningful at all if their conclusions are entirely disregarded. He is right to raise that issue.

I want briefly to describe the events that provoked me to challenge the previous Government on this issue when my party held the reins of power. I am not a recent convert to this cause; I made the same argument then—that we needed to recognise the justice of this campaign and act accordingly—but I did so knowing the events that have occurred.

I will not go over things laboriously—because you would not want me to, Dr Murrison, given the number of Members who want to speak in this debate—but essentially, when pension ages were equalised, which was the result of two Acts of Parliament, the notice given to the people affected was inadequate.

I am not an unbridled advocate of the case that every woman who thought that they were going to retire at 60, and then found that they would have to retire at 65, should be compensated. If a woman was young or middle-aged when that happened, there is a fair case that they had time to adjust—they could re-prepare; they could make different plans.

However, if a woman was born in the 1950s and had anticipated retiring in two, three or four years’ time but then had to work up to five years’ longer, it is a very different matter, because many of those women, anticipating their retirement, had prepared for exactly that eventuality. Many of those women, of course, were no longer working. They had ended work to look after elderly parents; they were playing a caring role; or their skills were no longer relevant to the workplace, because they had taken time out of work, first to have children and then, as I have said, to embark on other social responsibilities. These were women who worked hard and had done the right thing, and they are not all, as they are sometimes characterised by their critics, drawn from the liberal bourgeoisie—who, as you know, Dr Murrison, I generally speaking despise.

Having said that, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]

The words “liberal bourgeoisie” made me think. I represent the mainland constituency that is furthest away from Westminster, and I will just point out that this issue affects women from all over the UK, be they “liberal bourgeoisie” or not. In my constituency—that far away—370 people have signed the petition. This issue is huge all over the UK.

I meant no slight on the hon. Gentleman. He is right: it does affect women across the whole of the kingdom—and of course, he is much posher than bourgeois, so he could not be slighted by my remark.

I rise to speak as a WASPI woman myself, and I am very proud to associate myself with this campaign. I know that many people feel that perhaps we should perhaps not be entitled to compensation, because we were able to get mortgages and buy our own homes, we were able to generate more capital wealth, and many of us have private pensions. However, I personally had to stop work because my husband became ill, and I was looking forward to a retirement where my only income would have been the state pension. I am very thankful for my health; I knew that the retirement age had gone up, and when the right hon. Gentleman talks about skills and abilities—

Order. Interventions should be short.

I am sorry, Dr Murrison.

I was able to use my skills and abilities to become a councillor in 2022, and I am now looking forward to a much better retirement. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should do a U-turn and implement the ombudsman’s recommendation?

The hon. Lady’s intervention, though not pithy, was pertinent, because she is one of the 3.8 million women, of all kinds and types, who were affected. Many were not well-off; many did all kinds of jobs that could not be described as highly paid; and many found themselves in a position of financial hardship. That is why I stand here today—because this injustice affects all kinds of women, and it has been mischaracterised by some who do not want to face that fact. That makes me angry and righteously indignant, as I always am in the cause of the disadvantaged.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very kind in doing so. In Upper Bann and indeed across Northern Ireland, thousands of women feel absolutely betrayed by this Government. Does he agree that those women are in financial hardship today because of that betrayal? It is morally indefensible that not a penny has been made available to these women.

Yes, I agree. Some women were forced to carry on working, even when—as an earlier intervention suggested—they were not really in a position to do so, even when they had extra responsibilities, and even when they were not really fit to do so. That is just not acceptable. It is not right; it is not just.

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s righteous indignation, but I question where it was in 2016, when the SNP tabled a motion in support of the WASPI women and he voted against it. Is he not really just a Johnny-come-lately, despite what he said earlier in his speech?

I have been in this place a long time, as the hon. Lady knows, and she is here having first been endorsed by the electorate, then rejected, then re-endorsed. I have not had that difficulty myself; none the less, she will know that one learns and grows in this place. As I became more familiar with these arguments—I repeat this—I challenged the Conservative Government, my own party, on this issue, on the record, on the Floor of the House. It is not about this Minister; this is about any Minister who fails to recognise this matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If I might make a little progress, then I will happily give way.

It is important to set out some of the detail. Some of the worst-affected women received just 18 months’ notice of a six-year increase in their state pension age. Just under 2 million women fall into that category. The WASPI campaigners acknowledge that some were going to retire only a matter of days, or perhaps weeks, later than expected, whereas those who were given very long notice were clearly in a rather different circumstance. The campaigners are not unrealistic about that. Having met them and discussed it, I know that they are very realistic about the difference between those two groups, and they therefore simultaneously recognise that the Government response needs to be tailored, and measured in the way it gauges the responsibility. The breach in trust is common, but the effect of that breach in trust is different in different cases.

I do not advocate a response to this problem in which every single case is dealt with individually, so that there are as many different settlements as individuals. That would be impractical and delayed, and I emphasise delay because one of these women dies every 12 minutes. There will be another WASPI woman lost during the course of my speech. That is the reality. These bald statistics mask lives—lives altered, lives damaged and lives restricted by this matter.

That is what inspires me to speak today and, I am sure, inspires the hon. Gentleman, who is about to intervene to say just how much he supports me.

A lot of us have previously publicly supported the WASPI women, including by posting photographs on social media. The Government have acknowledged that there has been maladministration, but to have that acknowledgement without some kind of financial backing, even if minimal, not only undermines the process of the ombudsman, who so many of us rely on, but may undermine public confidence in politicians in general.

The hon. Gentleman is right and he encourages me to turn to the ombudsman’s report, which I have before me. Members will be pleased to note that, although I have inserted many tags into my copy of this report and the previous one, I will not refer to all of them. That would take forever.

Suffice it to say that the ombudsman found

“maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act 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.”

The ombudsman’s remedy is set out at the end of the second report. Ombudsmen recommend recompense on a scale—a series of levels, from 1 to 6. The report is here for everyone who has not studied it in detail to see: the ombudsman recommended a level 4 response. That means

“a significant and/or lasting injustice that has, to some extent, affected someone’s ability to live a relatively normal life.”

It suggests that the recompense might be between £1,000 and £2,950.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will in a second.

That suggestion seems to me to be a pretty modest response. It is not extreme, extravagant, unrealistic or unreasonable. It is a modest, measured response borne of the fact that the ombudsman has found maladministration. I have read the two reports. Having been in this House for a long time, been on the Front Bench of my party for 19 years and been a Minister in many Departments, I have rarely seen an ombudsman’s report as clear as this one about maladministration by a Government Department. On that note, I give way.

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendations for the compensation of WASPI women undermines the role of independent bodies in holding the Government to account? If we cannot rely on the Government to implement such findings, what message does that send to the public about justice and fairness?

That brings me to the constitutional point that I said I would make. I have established an ethical case, but there is a constitutional issue about the ombudsman. Over the years, we have developed a number of ways of holding the Executive to account. Parliament does that, of course, but there needs to be other means of doing so on particular and specific issues. That is why the Select Committee system emerged: as a way of studying what the Government were doing and making recommendations accordingly. That is also how ombudsmen began. They are an additional mechanism through which Government can be held to account, but for Select Committees and ombudsmen to have meaning, they must have teeth.

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that this also undermines our roles as Members of Parliament? As a Member of Parliament, I supported the referral of this case to the ombudsman. Does it undermine our roles if when the report comes back it is just dismissed?

Yes. My right hon. Friend is a refined Member of this House. To make a more refined argument in tune with his, I should say that the ombudsman’s report is, as he suggests, to Parliament. It is for Parliament to discuss, debate and make a decision on. The ombudsman’s report is about Government, but it is, exactly as he describes, to Parliament. I am grateful to him for refining my argument in that way.

I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for a number of years, and not just today. He will know that in July 2022, the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—responded to Carol, a WASPI woman who rang BBC Merseyside to raise this issue. The Prime Minister said:

“It’s a real injustice, and we need to do something about it”.

What does my right hon. Friend think he meant by that?

Well, it is not for me to second-guess the sentiments of the Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend is certainly right to say that a number of promises and comments were made. I will talk about them in a little more detail, provoked by his very helpful intervention.

I see in the Chamber today the former shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He will know that the Labour manifesto in 2019 was fulsome in its support for the WASPI women, promising a generous financial settlement. It is perfectly reasonable to say that parties move on; the new Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, may have taken a rather different view. He may have taken the opposite view.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will just make this point, and then I will happily give way.

But that was certainly not the impression given by the current Prime Minister’s remarks. He said:

“Justice to end historic injustice”—

that was specifically about WASPI women. The now Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government “stole” the pensions of WASPI women and that Labour would compensate them. Therefore, one can understand why the women, some of whom are represented here today—they are being incredibly diligent and quiet, Dr Murrison, you will be pleased to know—feel that this was indeed a “betrayal”, to use the word that I used at the beginning of my remarks. An expectation was established, and then it was blighted by the decision made since the general election.

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Could I make an appeal to all of us? I do not think that either side of this debate has covered itself in glory. I agree that this is a very dangerous precedent about the ombudsman, but let us not make this party political, please. Let us make this about the WASPI women. Is there not a way, at least, of compensating the very worst off among the WASPI women? I would appeal for that.

That is a measured intervention, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. It is true that a package could be put together and discussed with the campaign group and the women concerned; one would expect Government to do that. As a Minister, I would have had submissions. I have no doubt that this Minister has had them, and the Secretary of State must have had submissions that gave her options, before she said what she said when she let the WASPI women down. Those options would no doubt have included a series of ways through this. I know the Minister will be eager to explore those options with us when he sums up the debate. I have no doubt about that because he is a diligent and decent man; he will not want to betray those women again in what he says today because he is not that kind of character.

The Government’s position appears to be that they accept that the failures between 2005 and 2007 constitute maladministration. All of us can see in our inboxes the number of women who, as result of decisions taken on the basis of that failure, suffered as a result. But the Government’s position seems to be that there should be no remedy because it would be too difficult to get it right. What kind of justice is that?

There are several arguments used by those who do not want to get it right, to use my hon. Friend’s term. One is that the public do not care, although all the survey evidence suggests the opposite: that 75% of people think that WASPI women should be treated fairly. Another argument is that it will be too expensive. I could make all kinds of rather spiteful remarks about the Government’s decisions about public sector pay, but I will let them stand as a contradiction, without adding to them.

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He makes a very eloquent and persuasive statement. The current Government use compensation as an excuse, saying it is too expensive, but we have seen, for example, train drivers being given an additional £600 a day. We have seen Government intervene on the Post Office scandal. Does the right hon. Member agree that the argument can be easily disabused by looking at the track record on assistance for those who have found themselves at the forefront of injustice?

I had alluded a moment ago to the choices that Government make about how they spend money. Of course it is true that Government priorities will determine where money is spent. The issue is clearly not a priority for the Government. It is difficult, of course: Governments face all sorts of challenges that require investment, and this Government have chosen not to invest in this area. Frankly, it is as plain as that.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

With respect, I am going to conclude because I know so many want to speak; I do apologise. [Interruption.] All right, I will briefly give way, but it is the last time.

I am so grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way and indulging me. I simply want to add to his conclusion. These women have been part of a generation of women who have been discriminated against by statutory provisions over their lifetimes—whether by the reprehensible marriage bar, the gender pay gap or now this. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree. [Applause.]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I am slightly jealous that I have not managed to attract any kind of applause, but no doubt that will come at the end of my peroration. The hon. Lady is right: that generation of women, born after the war, did not have straightforward lives. That was a difficult time in this country, particularly for women. I talked earlier about their hard work and diligence, and their role as homemakers, mothers and grandmothers. They just deserve better; that is what has driven and inspired me to bring this debate.

I will end on this note. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am mindful of the words of Edmund Burke, who said:

“Your representative owes you not only his industry, but his judgement”.

In the end, this is a matter of judgment. Do we think the issue matters or do we not? Exercising judgment, I leave him with this further quote, from J.R.R. Tolkien:

“False hopes are more dangerous than fears”.

We gave these people false hope. I fear that we will not now put this matter right by realising the rightful hope that they had in thinking they were going to retire at a certain time but then ended up doing so at an entirely different time due to a change of Government policy. That was because of nothing they did, nothing they changed, nothing they chose; it was a change in the law.

I hope that when the Minister sums up he will recognise the strength of feeling across the House, and across this country: that this injustice must be put right, in the name of democratic legitimacy and the trust that I set out at the beginning of my peroration.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who—as I know from working with him on other campaigns—is quite the social justice warrior, contrary to popular belief. I fully align myself with the comments he has made. I also welcome the new Minister to his position. We have high hopes for him in this place.

When the ombudsman finally confirmed last year that the Department for Work and Pensions was guilty of maladministration, that these woman had suffered injustice and that they were entitled to compensation, we thought that was it—case closed; the next step would be what a redress mechanism would look like. Of course, many felt that the ombudsman’s report had not gone far enough, but we had the firm expectancy that the previous Government, and later this one, would at the very least act on the ombudsman’s recommendations, as would be the usual course of action.

So when the Government finally issued their response, it was met with shock—shock that despite the clear findings of state-level injustice, these women were to be denied justice; shock that the ombudsman’s findings that too many people did not understand their own situations was ignored by the Government; and shock that while, on the one hand, maladministration was accepted, the recommendations of the ombudsman were rejected in full, without alternative proposals being set out or there being an opportunity to vote or debate the matter in Parliament, as the ombudsman intimated.

There were also fears, as colleagues have stated, that a precedent might now be set on observing an ombudsman’s proposals. Usually, when a state-level injustice is found, a Government of the time will act on an ombudsman’s proposals or outline their own alternative ones.

The work the Government are doing to improve transparency and accountability contrasts with what happened under the previous Administration, but does the hon. Lady agree that if they ignore an independent ombudsman’s report, it just looks like more of the same to people in my constituency?

It is incredibly worrying.

I do not want to test your patience, Dr Murrison, so I will draw my comments to a close by saying this to the Minister. He must be aware that the ombudsman made the rare choice to lay this report before Parliament because it was not reassured that the Department for Work and Pensions would act on its recommendations, and it was right to have that fear. The Minister must understand that although many of us in this place wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s apology to the impacted women and acknowledge the difficult financial landscape the Government find themselves in, state-level injustice is state-level injustice. It cannot be ignored, and an apology alone is not sufficient. A remedy must be forthcoming to address the clear and apparent injustice that these women have faced.

At a rough count, there are in excess of 50 colleagues here from a range of parties. I hope every one of them pledges to join the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, ably led by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey).

This boils down to a question of credibility and respect. What credibility and respect can there be for ombudsmen’s reports if they are ignored? What credibility and respect can there be for Members of Parliament, ranging from the now Prime Minister to foot soldiers such as me, who parade with placards saying we will fight and campaign on behalf of the WASPI women, if we do not follow through on those commitments?

I want to raise one particular point that bothers me, and then I will let others continue the debate. In trying to justify their policy of inaction, the Government seem to be oscillating between two positions: on the one hand, they keep suggesting that they simply cannot afford to give any compensation at all, but in the next breath they seem almost to be challenging the contents of the ombudsman’s report, relying on a dodgy poll that suggests that 90% of the affected women knew about the changes. Well, if the Government can rely on dodgy polls, so can I. I happen to be married to a WASPI woman, and on a dodgy poll of one I can tell the Government that she did not know and did not get a letter, and she has no particular motivation for claiming otherwise, given that it would not have affected her career choices. The Minister needs to be clear when he sums up: do the Government accept that there was maladministration, as the report sets out, or are they trying to deny that fact?

In paragraph 20 of the report, the ombudsman says:

“While it is unusual for organisations we investigate not to accept and act on our recommendations, we have no powers to compel them to comply. When an organisation does not comply with our recommendations, we can lay a report before Parliament so that Parliament can act to protect citizens’ rights.”

That is what the ombudsman expects, and that is what the WASPI women have every right to expect too.

Order. Colleagues will have done the maths. Not everybody is going to get in. I am reluctant to introduce a formal time limit, but you really ought to limit yourselves to two minutes, please. I am sure John McDonnell will be an exemplar.

I certainly will, Dr Murrison. I welcome the Minister to his position. I am so pleased that he has been given such an easy policy to resolve as his first task.

Reference has been made to the 2019 manifesto commitment, so let me briefly set it out:

“Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans—with sometimes devastating personal consequences. Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered.”

We did that on the basis that those women had paid into the system and been given a date to retire, but had not been given adequate notice. As a result, their life plans were changed dramatically and they suffered consequences. We co-produced a scheme that was expensive—I accept that—and that was going to pay out over a five-year period, but it would have meant that we resolved the matter once and for all. We were not elected, and that scheme never went forward.

When I saw the ombudsman’s investigation, I thought that at least something would be done. When the ombudsman’s report came out, I was not satisfied with it, but I thought it was at least something. Not having that implemented has crushed people; it has crushed their confidence in the system. I say to my own party, which is now in government, that we need the Government to sit down with the ’50s WASPI women and, if necessary, to either implement this scheme or mediate for an alternative, but we need action.

I say to the Minister that this issue is not going away. We are not going away. The women are not going away although, tragically, some of them are dying. This campaign will go on until we secure justice.

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

“I need to vent my frustration and anger at the Government’s announcement yesterday that they will not accept the ombudsman’s recommendation to pay WASPI women some compensation for maladministration. They were in support of this whilst they were in opposition.

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

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

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I need to say at the outset that my mam is a WASPI woman. Her generation entered into a contract with the state, which the state reneged on and then stole from them.

But this debate is about more than the injustice these women continue to suffer: it is about trust in politicians and our dwindling faith in democracy. I have continually pledged my support to the more than 5,000 women in South Shields who are affected by these changes. These women were as shocked as I was when the Government announced in December that there would be no compensation.

WASPI women do not disagree with compensation for the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, for LGBT veterans and for sub-postmasters, but they do not understand why they are being treated differently. An injustice is an injustice. The PHSO was clear that it is Parliament that needs to make the final decision, yet Parliament has not been allowed to.

I know that deciding on compensation will be complicated and costly, but that is not an excuse. It should not be beyond the realms of any Parliament or Government to figure this out. These women see, as we all do, how the very wealthy and companies profit from our country and do not reinvest in it. Those are the ones who should be paying the price for the economic mess the previous Government left behind, not those who spent their lives contributing. Their fight for fast and fair compensation continues to have my steadfast support, because my words and promises to them, and to the people who sent me to Parliament, matter to me. They put me here, and I will always put them first, because the day I do not, I no longer deserve to be their voice in this place.

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this important debate. I will not repeat what so many Members have already said—repetition never makes any argument more persuasive—but the stark fact raised by the right hon. Member is that a WASPI woman dies every 12 minutes, so we will have lost five or six by the time the debate finishes.

As politicians, we have a responsibility and an obligation to act urgently to establish a comprehensive compensation scheme that can be tailored over time. We do not have to raise hundreds of millions of pounds straightaway; that could be done over the lifetime of this Parliament. Such a scheme would recognise the important contribution made by women born in the 1950s, and support the impartial, independent role of the ombudsman, thereby giving it the credence it deserves.

As representatives of the public, we must ensure the principles of transparency, accountability and fair treatment that underpin our democracy. It is time we stood up for this deserving group of women across the country and specifically the hundreds and hundreds from Birmingham Perry Barr who have written to me.

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this important debate. I state on record my support and admiration for the WASPI campaign. They have campaigned tirelessly for an acknowledgment of the wrong they face and, crucially, for compensation. I have been pleased to meet many of them on a number of occasions during my time as an MP, and I stand in complete solidarity with them.

The Government have rightly accepted the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s findings of maladministration and apologised for the 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women, but what good is that apology if there are going to be no steps towards redress? These hard-working women contributed to the economy, raised families, cared for others and contributed to society in countless ways. They planned their lives based on assurances that the state pension would be available at 60. Instead, they have faced financial hardship, uncertainty and, in many cases, significant distress.

As a result of the previous Government’s maladministration, these women have spent the bitter, cold winter rationing their heating because 84% are concerned about soaring energy costs. I know that that reality is faced by people up and down the country, but it is doubly so by WASPI women. What is the cost of failing to address the injustice and leaving thousands of women in financial hardship, without the support they were promised? What is the point of an apology without redress?

Some precedents have been mentioned already for providing compensation where the Government have failed. Those include schemes for Equitable Life investors and for the victims of blood contamination and the Post Office scandal. Even though the scheme was poorly administered, victims of the Windrush scandal have rightfully been awarded compensation for the suffering they endured. Ultimately, the principle has to be the same and has to apply in this case: the Government made a severe mistake, and thousands suffered as a result, so compensation should be paid.

It goes without saying that the mistake was not made by the current Government, and the blame does not lie at their feet, but unfortunately the responsibility for redress does. There is a strong moral imperative for the Government to accept the ombudsman’s recommendation. We have heard during the debate how many WASPI women have died since the campaign began. People voted for a Labour Government that would act in a more compassionate way than their Conservative predecessor, and we still have the opportunity not to let them down.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate.

In Epsom and Ewell alone, 5,420 women have been affected by the changes to the state pension age, and their voices echo the sense of betrayal felt nationwide. These women have been wronged, not just by the failure to properly notify them of significant changes to their pensions, but now by this Government’s refusal to act on the clear recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The ombudsman concluded that there was maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions dating back to 2005. It found that delays in communication meant too many women did not understand how the changes would affect them. Despite that, this Government have refused to pay any compensation.

A constituent of mine captured the heartbreak that so many feel. She wrote:

“I am absolutely devastated and I feel betrayed. For years, senior Labour representatives and even the Prime Minister himself pledged to deliver fair compensation to those impacted. They have now made a political choice to break that promise and to ignore the findings of an independent watchdog…The Government failed to properly inform women of the changes, and many were plunged into poverty as a result.”

Many women were blindsided by the changes, left unable to prepare for the financial shock that followed and plunged into hardship through no fault of their own.

I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have long called for justice for these women. We remain steadfast in our belief that the Government have a moral duty to act in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. The decision to deny compensation sets a dangerous precedent, undermines the role of independent watchdogs and erodes public trust in governance. The Government’s refusal to act on the issue is heartless and short-sighted. These women are asking for fairness, for recognition of the injustice they have suffered and for the means to rebuild their lives. I urge the Government to reconsider their position, listen to the ombudsman and do right by these women. It is time we ended this injustice.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing the debate, and thank his colleagues from the all-party group.

Many of us believe that the treatment of the WASPI women is profoundly unjust. For over a decade I have stood with local campaigners in my constituency, at rallies and here in Parliament. The merits of their case remain undeniable, and their demand for justice is as compelling as ever. Does the Minister agree that, following the ombudsman’s recommendations, we must begin to address this injustice? When an injustice is identified, we surely have a duty to root it out and make it right.

The Conservative party does not have a “get out of jail free” card on this issue. I was in this Chamber when 75 Members debated this issue—so many that some were sitting on the window ledges—and the DWP Minister, the then hon. Member for Hexham, suggested that women who could not make ends meet could take up apprenticeships and retrain. I do not know whether any Members here today were at that debate, but the Minister had to be escorted out of the Chamber by security and put in a service elevator for his own protection.

Sadly, more than 300,000 WASPI women have died since the campaign began. Given that the ombudsman took the extremely rare step of instructing Parliament to act to ensure that the Government issue compensation and an apology, does the Minister not think it right to settle this injustice?

Ministers in this place set the attitude and tone of public bodies. If it is acceptable for the Government to disregard ombudsman decisions on cost grounds, that sets a dangerous precedent. It tells other financially stretched public bodies to ignore any ombudsman recommendations with cost implications, irrespective of the merits and justice of the case.

Thank you for chairing this debate, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing it and allowing us the opportunity to speak.

It is truly shocking that the Government were willing to apologise, admit that there had been maladministration and then to say, “Sorry, we’re not doing anything about it.” The WASPI women have run one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. Imagine this society and economy without the contribution of the WASPI women. These women were told throughout their careers to be quiet, and were told that they were not as valuable as the men who were working with them. These women quietly got on with the job, raised children, looked after parents and worked incredibly hard for less money than their colleagues. These women put so much in, and made these islands what they are today.

The UK Government are sitting there knowing that they wronged this group of women and are unwilling to do anything about it. What would the Treasury’s coffers look like if they did not have the £200 billion from equalising the state pension age? Imagine what we have asked those women to put up with throughout their time, and this Parliament is saying to them, “You’re still not worth it. You’re still not valuable. You still do not deserve compensation, despite the fact that we’ve wronged you.”

The Government know that they are wrong; they know this is the wrong decision. What they need to do now is put it to a vote on the Floor of the House and give every single MP the opportunity to walk through the Lobbies to make clear their individual views on the actions being taken towards the WASPI women and the principle and administration of compensation. The WASPI women deserve compensation. The Government need to give us a vote.

Colleagues, the wind-ups will begin at 3.28 pm.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. This is a profound injustice, and one that has shaken the lives of countless women born in the 1950s, who are the very backbone of our society. They have endured hardship, anxiety and financial insecurity because of what the parliamentary ombudsman has unequivocally stated was maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions. It is indisputably an injustice.

I understand and support this Government’s mission to address the mess that was left by what I can describe only as the worst Government in my lifetime. However, the role of a Member of Parliament is not to offer unquestioning subservience to their party. When something is wrong, they have a duty to say so. I cannot and will not abandon these women. As a candidate, I stood beside them, held their banners aloft and pledged my support. I told the WASPI women of Hartlepool that I would always stand by them. That commitment does not and must not end with an election. I will not leverage their support only to walk away once I have their votes.

I count WASPI women as my friends. I pay special tribute to Barbara Crossman and Lynne Taylor, who are in the Public Gallery today, and the countless WASPI women across Hartlepool for their tireless and passionate campaigning. I have supported them for years and am standing with them now. Let us remember what is at stake. This is about not merely compensation, but trust. It is about ensuring that no citizen or generation feels abandoned by the institutions that are meant to protect them. I say to the WASPI women and their supporters that their fight is just, that their voices will not be silenced and that justice delayed is justice denied. Together, we will continue the fight.

In Wales different groups, including 1950s Women of Wales and WASPI, have been working tirelessly to force Government action on pension inequality over many, many years. Unlike Labour in government, Plaid Cymru’s support for 1950s-born women has not swayed with the tide. We believe it is inexcusable that the Labour Government have refused the recommendation of their own regulator, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, to provide compensation, and justified that by saying what we have always heard: that the cost would not

“be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.”

Paper justice—justice without compensation or redress —is an insult to a system that bothers to pretend that the ombudsman’s offices can protect the citizen from the incompetence or failures of the state. As things stand, this is not even a tissue of justice. It is particularly unjustifiable because the ombudsman makes clear in its final report that

“finite resources should not be…an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy.”

The level of compensation set out by the ombudsman does not go far enough in the first place. It does little to account for the impact, both financial and otherwise, on affected 1950s-born women. Plaid Cymru has consistently supported compensation of at least level 5 on the ombudsman scale: between £3,000 and £9,950. These were women whose voices were not heard during their careers. That is the experience of many of them and many of us. It is a shameful thing that with a Labour Government in power, their voices remain unheard. The impact on 1950s women deserves more than a meagre apology.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member South Holland and the Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate. We have it in our power to have Opposition day debates—there are 20 in a parliamentary Session—and that would be a means of bringing a vote to the Floor of the House; I urge those parties that have it within their gift to bring forward an Opposition day debate to do so, to hear those voices and to have it recorded.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. I have a long record of supporting and have worked closely with the WASPI women, both before and after being elected as their MP. I believed in their cause then, and I still believe in their cause today.

The Government were right to apologise for the delay in writing to the 1950s-born women, and they were right to acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned. Those were important first steps. However, I am very disappointed by the Government’s decision not to fully implement the PHSO recommendation to pay compensation. Let me explain why.

Claiming that most 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing is not accurate. That statistic is from a 2006 survey that referred to a general awareness across the whole population about future changes to the state pension age. It did not ask whether people knew about the specific impact of state pension age changes on them as individuals, and only around 5% of survey respondents were 1950s-born women.

For many, the abrupt change meant they were left with fewer financial resources, longer working years and, in some cases, significant personal distress, especially for women in low-paid jobs. The financial hardship that WASPI women have experienced is a direct consequence of the pension age increase. The parliamentary ombudsman ruled that the national financial challenges should not be a barrier to awarding compensation.

Although compensating WASPI women may not be an easy administrative task, that is not a reason for avoiding action. Government is difficult, but that is not a valid excuse. I am disappointed that the Government decided not to implement all the recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman, who laid the report before MPs and handed the role of compensating WASPI women to Parliament. That is why WASPI women are so angry.

Every woman has a right to be able to plan for a dignified and secure retirement. I therefore urge the Government to look again at the ombudsman’s recommendations, do the right thing and ensure that WASPI women get the financial justice that they so deserve.

Jim Shannon, you have 30 seconds.

On behalf of the 5,000 WASPI women in Strangford, I beseech the Government to take the right decision and make the just decision for them. It is not just an obligation because of the ombudsman; it is a moral obligation as well. I think of all the women who come to see me and feel—I say this with great respect—let down by the Labour Government. One lady said to me, “I’ve been a member of the union all my life and the Labour party have let me down.” I speak for her and all the others.

I congratulate the right hon. Member South Holland and the Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this really important debate.

When one reflects on there being more WASPI women in the United Kingdom than the population of Wales, it demonstrates how this is a massive issue for this United Kingdom. In my constituency there are 6,930 WASPI women, and there are a similar number in Newton Abbot over the border. There are 7,400 in South Devon. Yet in the Prime Minister’s constituency there are fewer than 4,000. I smell a rat. I will give credit to those Labour Members who are here but, just as with the winter fuel payments, we can see that sadly certain members of the Government are choosing, because of the arithmetic around pensioners, to make decisions of an ill-advised nature like this.

In her statement on WASPI women, the Secretary of State talked of the fact that the decision was made by a previous Government, and that that was what WASPI women were really concerned about. The reality is—I hope the Minister will address this; other colleagues have raised it—that the report was about the communications and the impact on women. It was not about a previous decision. So that is what the Government should be addressing.

On that point, my constituent Lauraine took early retirement from the NHS in 2014 to care for her husband. She believed that her state pension would kick in in 2015 and support her in her caring responsibilities, since she never received any notification from the DWP to tell her that it would not. She feels angry and let down. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that the Government can hear testimonies such as Lauraine’s and still refuse the fair compensation that these women deserve?

Yes, and my hon. Friend also reminds me of Marilyn in my constituency, who suffered a significant illness and would have benefited from compensation—as would Pam, who cared for two terminally-ill family members. I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

What a baptism of fire this is for the new Minister, but we need him to address the real issues. He must not be wilfully blind to the recommendations of the ombudsman. I would also welcome an explanation why an answer to my named day question, which was named yesterday, remains outstanding.

Commendably brief, if I may say so. I call the Opposition spokesman.

Thank you, Dr Murrison; it is a pleasure and an honour to serve under my constituency neighbour on, I think, your first day in the Chair. I congratulate all Members who have spoken powerfully and eloquently on behalf of their constituents. I also pay tribute to the those in the campaign, many of whom are in the Public Gallery, silent witnesses to our debate—I honour them for their long campaign for justice.

In particular, I congratulate the new Minister, who I am glad to welcome to his place. Today is his first outing as a Minister, and he has quite a job to do to answer this debate. He is, of course, familiar to us from the media as an independent expert, offering ostensibly impartial advice helpful to the Labour party over many years; I am glad to see him in his rightful place at last. I exonerate him, as a new Minister, for this decision: he did not make it, but has been thrown into it by his party and his boss, the Secretary of State. Perhaps he can change the policy, now that he is new to the role and not implicated in it. Perhaps it was a condition of his accepting office that the Government revisit this topic. I very much hope that that is what we will hear from him shortly.

Particular congratulations, likewise, to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I honour his long campaign on behalf of women born in the 1950s. It is not only because he loves everything from the 1950s that he is taking this position; he is absolutely right in everything that he said.

The complexity of the matter has been well addressed by the ombudsman and by the Members who spoke today, so I will not revisit the issue in any detail; it reflects the work of a series of Governments over 30 years since the 1995 decision to equalise the retirement age. I was glad to see in the ombudsman’s report that the DWP has co-operated fully with his inquiry and I am glad that Ministers and officials respected the ombudsman process.

I am sure this point was made by the Secretary of State in the main Chamber when the decision was announced, but the suggestion that this matter could have been cleared up by the previous Government in consequence of the ombudsman’s report is, I think, a little unfair, given that the report came out only two months before the general election was called. It has taken five months for this Government to make their decision—these things are complex. I respect the challenge that the Government have had. I wish we had had time to address it ourselves, but the voters would not have it. This, of course, is this Government’s decision.

To address the central issue, the ombudsman found that adequate communications were made throughout the period, but that there was a particular maladministration, as Members have repeatedly mentioned: the delay in sending out letters in 2005 to 2007. It is good that the Secretary of State acknowledged that maladministration in her response to the ombudsman—I appreciate that and accept it—and that she apologised on behalf of the then Labour Government and the DWP. The fact is, however, while no direct financial loss may have been caused by the maladministration of communication, with a direct change to people’s incomes, nevertheless, as we have heard so eloquently from Members, the maladministration—the failure to communicate properly—has caused women to make decisions in ignorance of their true circumstances.

Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that the parliamentary ombudsman issued another report this morning damning the Department for Work and Pensions, which she criticised for

“failing to learn from its mistakes”?

She revealed yet another case, of a pensioner who was not told for eight years about a change to their pension that would leave them £3,000 a year worse off.

The hon. Gentleman highlights the central point here: although, as Members have said, the change of policy itself was not the subject of the ombudsman’s inquiry, the failure to communicate directly impacted the circumstances of many women. They did not understand the circumstances they would be in, and it changed the decisions they were making.

Does the shadow Minister share with me, and I believe with many in this Chamber, what the good book refers to as righteous anger? There is righteous anger today for those elderly people and women who looked towards their retirement as the end of pain and exhaustion. They were unable to plan financially to enable them to retire earlier due to the nature of the communication they were given by Government. Righteous anger deserves justice. Does he agree that the ladies who I and others in this Chamber represent deserve justice? Whether the Minister is responsible or not, he has to give a justifiable yes to what they want.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have heard it said that anger is love in the presence of injustice. The righteous anger that so many people feel here in this Chamber and beyond reflects the essential injustice we have seen.

The Government, in their response to the report, made this central defence, which we might hear again from the Minister: they dispute that women were left out of pocket because of the failure of communication made by DWP all those years ago. The Secretary of State argued in the Commons that letters do not have much impact anyway, citing some research suggesting that people ignore letters, do not read them or do not remember receiving them. It begs the question of why Government communicate at all if there is no value to it. It is obviously true that communication of an issue raises awareness of the issue. The failure to communicate meant that awareness of the issue was not possible for these people.

I recognise the challenge faced by the Government here. It is, of course, difficult to assess the precise circumstances of 3.5 million women. I recognise that some of the claims made on behalf of the campaign were exorbitant. Nevertheless, there were many options on the table for the Government to consider, from a hardship fund to smaller packages of support. It was not the only option to give a total no—nothing at all for the WASPI women. That was not the only option.

Exactly what is the Conservative policy on WASPI women? I have been a long-standing campaigner for WASPI women, voting for the SNP motion in 2016, which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) failed to attend. It is unclear exactly what the shadow Minister is suggesting. Is he suggesting that there is no plan from the Conservatives for what they would do?

We do believe there should be justice for the WASPI women. We do believe that an injustice was done and that there should be support offered to them. There needs to be a proper cross-party agreement on this, and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on it. We were examining the report ourselves when we were sadly removed from office, when the hon. Lady returned to the House, and I am sure that my party would have come forward with a much better package of support than the Government have—because that would not be difficult, would it?

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about individuals having the information to plan for their future. Could he therefore comment on why, under 14 years of his party’s control of the Department for Work and Pensions, one of the major platforms of its work, the pensions dashboard programme, had to be reset? The costs associated with it increased 23% because it basically went off the rails under his Government’s leadership.

Well, I am afraid to say that often there is maladministration in benefits and welfare, which is the consequence of this vast system that we have. I apologise on behalf of the previous Government if mistakes were made. However, the point is that under the previous Government significant increases were made in both pensions and benefits for pensioners. The state pension rose by nearly £4,000 under the last Government, with an increase of nearly 9% in the last year alone, so I am proud of our record on supporting pensioners.

On behalf of the WASPI women and particularly the campaigners, I would like to reflect their intense disappointment, because the fact is that hope was held out to them by Labour when Labour was in Opposition, including by the now Prime Minister, the now Chancellor and the now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Who knows? Maybe even the Minister who is here today held out such hope when he was campaigning. Many people voted Labour at the election last year because they believed that justice would be done for the WASPI women, because that is what Labour candidates said would happen. The broken trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings so eloquently referred to is very real.

I would like the Minister to explain why this decision was made, because there was no specific explanation by the Secretary of State when she announced the decision. Was it because the Government could not afford compensation? Was it because of their newly discovered problems with the economy when they arrived in office? If so, could they not afford anything? Nothing? No package at all could be afforded—not even a small one? Or was it because they thought that it was wrong and unfair to compensate the WASPI women, even if it was affordable? If they did think that the WASPI women are owed some money, there can be no question about paying it. Justice demands it; it must be paid. Something else must give way.

I end by making a political point, I am afraid. The fact is that this Government have made a decision not to compensate the WASPI women because they are making payments in all sorts of other directions. There are a lot of discretionary payments being announced by this Government. They have made huge salary increases to train drivers without any reforms to their productivity, they have created an energy company costing billions of pounds that does not make any energy and, most recently, they are paying a foreign country to take off our hands a UK sovereign territory that is vital to the defence of the UK. There are discretionary payments available and it would be interesting to know why on earth they have not made this one. They did not have to act in that way, and I look forward to the Minister justifying why the decision was made and saying what he will do to bring justice for these women.

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Dr Murrison.

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing a debate on this important topic. I also thank him, if slightly less enthusiastically, for its timing, which is on my first day in office. That fact also explains the delay in answering the named day question put by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which he referred to in his contribution to the debate.

I am under no illusion that everyone in this Chamber, or almost everyone in this Chamber, will agree with everything that I am about to say. However, all of us who have listened to this debate and to the important points made by right hon. and hon. Members have benefited from it, and we all recognise the context of this debate, which is the squeeze on living standards that has affected women born in the 1950s just as it has the entire country.

The issues that we are discussing today are important to many women, including my aunt in west Wales, who was born in 1955 and who pays particularly close attention to these issues. I spoke to her last night as part of my preparation for this debate and she would agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), that women of her generation have faced many difficulties and particular discrimination. People have spoken powerfully about that.

It is therefore right that this debate gives the long-held concerns of those women the consideration they deserve, just as it was right that the Government considered those concerns in making the decision that we are debating today. That is also why my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), was the first Minister in eight years to meet WASPI Ltd, why the Government considered the ombudsman’s investigations and reports in detail, and why we look closely at what Parliament has said on this subject. Although I understand that the outcome was disappointing for many, the decision was based on the evidence.

Before I set out how we reached that decision, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) requested, it is worth reiterating the point that several Members have made: the ombudsman’s report was not about the decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age for women, or the decision in 2011 to accelerate that increase. Those decisions were the focus of remarks by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). They were taken by Parliament, including by many Members who are here today, and they were upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2020.

I welcome the Minister to his place; I appreciate that this debate is his first outing and his comments about the timing are well made. However, the WASPI campaigners have never made that case; they have never said that they were against the equalisation. What they said, and rightly so, is that they were not properly informed and that is precisely what the then ombudsman confirmed in his report. Will the Minister just answer this simple question? The ombudsman said that he felt it was unlikely the DWP would respond to his report—it was sad that he should have to say that. The ombudsman proposed—unusually, in his words—that the matter be laid before Parliament. Will the Minister use his endeavours to ensure Parliament gets to vote on the ombudsman’s recommendations?

We have already had a long statement in the main Chamber. The point of debates like this one today is to make sure that the Government are held accountable for their decisions.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make some progress and give way later on. There has also been, as has been raised, the opportunity for all parties to call for more time and for votes in the main Chamber. I am sure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will take that up with his party in the months ahead. I will make some progress and take more interventions as we proceed.

The ombudsman’s investigation concerned the more specific question of how changes in the state pension age were communicated to women, like my aunt, born in the 1950s. The Government started sending personalised letters in April 2009, but the ombudsman concluded we should have started 28 months earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has apologised for that delay. We are determined to learn the lessons so that we avoid similar mistakes happening again. First, we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations. Secondly, we are committed to providing clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age so that people can plan for their retirement. Thirdly, the Secretary of State has directed the Department to develop a clear and transparent communication strategy for state pension changes; work on that has already begun. This will build on changes that are already under way, such as our online “Check your State Pension forecast” service, which provides a forecast of the level of state pension, but also information about when people can take it.

The ombudsman looked at six cases and concluded that DWP provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004. However, they also found that decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s, many of whom are here with us today. The ombudsman said that those delays did not result in women suffering from direct financial loss, but that there was maladministration, and we agree.

In spite of what the ombudsman has recommended, it is clear that the current Prime Minister recognised and advocated throughout the country that WASPI women were dealt an enormous injustice. It is a principle of democracy where we advocate for something when we want power, we ought to deliver once we get power to maintain trust and confidence. In spite of what the ombudsman recommends, does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister should honour what he advocated?

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Labour party did oppose the acceleration of the state pension age in the early part of the last decade, but he and many other Members will have noticed very viscerally that the Labour party lost many elections since then. Parliament made a decision and the courts have since endorsed that decision. There was maladministration and we must learn the lessons.

I appreciate that being newly in post is difficult, but can I clarify something? The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), said that the changes were introduced in 1995—I believe under John Major—but the acceleration of the changes was in 2011-12, under the coalition Government. I think Steve Webb was the pensions Minister. My hon. Friend the Minister says that there was no financial loss, but there must be a financial loss for the women affected. We could argue whether that is justified. We certainly cannot argue that a majority in Parliament passed it. The women must have suffered a financial loss because of having to wait another six years before getting their pension.

I thank my hon. Friend on two fronts for his intervention. First, because he has reinforced the point that I just made, which was that we are struggling to distinguish between the rights and wrongs of the original decision about the state pension age, the equalisation in 1995, the acceleration in 2011 and the ombudsman’s report, which is focused narrowly on the communication of those decisions. On a second front, he reminds us that it was in fact George Osborne who said that the acceleration of the state pension rises was the single biggest saving that he made. He boasted about it, but that is a separate issue.

Will the Minister give way?

I think I should make some progress and give way later. I want to get on to the bit that most Members might not agree with, but at least will explain what we are doing, because we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or indeed to remedy. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly noted that is unusual, and it should be unusual. However it is also not unprecedented.

The decision not to introduce a compensation scheme was difficult and complex. The ombudsman assumed, despite evidence to the contrary, that sending letters earlier would have fundamentally changed what women knew and how they acted. However research from 2014 shows that only one in four people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remembers receiving and reading them. The ombudsman does not address this evidence.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm whether the Government’s decision and their claim that only 10% of women affected were unaware of the state pension change is based on a survey from 2006 involving just 210 respondents?

If my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress, I will come to exactly that point shortly.

There was considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. I think everyone agrees on that even if they do not agree about the research itself. The research used by the ombudsman, from 2004, shows that 73% of people then aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was going up. Further research shows that, by 2006—when the ombudsman finds that the direct mailing should have begun—90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing. We therefore cannot accept that, in the vast majority of cases—and I appreciate it is in the vast majority of cases—sending letters earlier would have affected whether women knew their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunities to make an informed decision. It would not be reasonable—

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for a second time. To be clear about this: there are two issues at stake here—how many women knew, and how communications would have affected that. The fact of the matter is that the ombudsman’s report—I have it in my hand—says

“Research reported in 2004 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the 1995 Pensions Act knew their State Pension age was 65, or between 60 and 65.”

That is a clear majority of women who did not know. Therefore the only debate is whether communicating with them would have been effective. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said, if it would not have been effective, what is the point in Government communicating at all?

I was not going to go into this detail, but the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is inviting me to return to some of my past lives with the details of surveys. The 43% figure that he is referring to refers to all women. What the ombudsman did not do is look at the same survey and look at the women who were affected by this change, who were obviously slightly later in life and much more likely to know about their state pension age. That is where the higher figures I am quoting come from. It is from the same survey as used by the ombudsman, but it is focused on the women who are actually affected by the change.

I thank the Minister for giving way and I congratulate him on his appointment. However, to get to the crux of this: when the decision our Government have made on this was announced—and there is much to be proud of in what it has done since the general election—my jaw hit the floor. I was flabbergasted. It is my belief that the vast majority of Labour MPs could not believe it when it was announced. That pales into insignificance compared to the reaction of the WASPI women who I and others have been proud to support in my Leeds East constituency and elsewhere. My last point is that, before this decision was made, I said to the WASPI women outside Parliament that justice delayed is justice denied. This is worse than that. I thought I was just trying to compel our Government to hurry up and make a decision. This is not justice delayed is justice denied. As it stands, unless we do something, this is justice denied full stop.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his brief congratulations on my appointment prior to his wider comments. I would say gently that he and I both stood on the same manifesto which did not promise to provide compensation, and lots of Members have talked about trust in this Chamber. There was a clear choice not to make that promise in the manifesto.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I really must make some progress because we are about to run out of time.

It would not be a reasonable or fair use of taxpayer money to pay compensation to people whose circumstances would be the same today even if the maladministration had never occurred. A compensation scheme would cost up to £10.5 billion, less than the scheme previously proposed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) but still a significant amount.

The ombudsman is clear that, as a matter of principle, redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact. The Department considered at length whether a tailored scheme could be delivered, but it was simply not a viable option. The ombudsman’s report acknowledges the cost and administrative burden of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s. Indeed, it took the ombudsman nearly six years to investigate just the six sample cases. To set up a scheme and invite 3.5 million women to set out their detailed personal circumstances would take years and thousands of staff.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

I must make some progress.

We also do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money. I want to address the questions asked by several hon. Members about the specific research findings. It is important to say that the evidence on what women knew about the state pension age changes is robust. The same research was used by the ombudsman, who clearly did not have concerns about its validity.

I have heard hon. Members make powerful speeches today and I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, not least from my aunt. Many women born in the 1950s worked hard in paid jobs, often balancing that with raising a family. The Government have a responsibility to take their concerns seriously, which is why Ministers listened, reflected and carefully considered this complex decision. As custodians of the public purse, however, we must also ensure that decisions are rooted in evidence and are fair to everyone.

The fact remains that the vast majority of women knew that the state pension age was increasing. Even for those who did not, we know that sending letters earlier would not have made a difference in most cases. [Interruption.] Although I know that that decision will be disappointing, as we are hearing, and many have been frustrated by watching this debate drag on for years, we believe it is the right course of action. Of course, it is also right that the Government should be held to account for that decision, as is happening today.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I think I am right in saying that it is unprecedented for the Government to reject in its entirety an ombudsman’s report and offer absolutely nothing. Those women were led up the garden path in the last election, and before that, by people saying that compensation was going to be paid. The Minister needs to explain why the Government are simply ignoring the plight of those women.

It is an important issue, and we have been listening to the plight of those women for many years—and rightly so. Important and powerful cases have been made by many hon. Members, but I have set out why the Government have made that decision.

We will continue to help women born in the 1950s and pensioners across the UK by investing a crucial £22 billion into NHS England this year and next, with consequentials for the Welsh and Scottish Governments.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not.

The biggest betrayal of our older generations is the state of our health service. We will also boost the state pension by up to £1,900 by the end of this Parliament. As the new Pensions Minister, I know that nothing is more important than providing a foundation for the secure retirement that everyone deserves after a lifetime of work.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate. It has shown that the sense of injustice felt by the WASPI women is shared by Members on both sides of the House of Commons. Sadly, however—I am sorry to say this to the Minister—it is not shared by those in the driving seat who are making the decisions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I will be quick and nice.

No—forgive me, but my time is very short.

I sincerely hope that we will get a parliamentary vote on this issue and I will use every endeavour to ensure that we do. The WASPI women deserve better than the explanation we heard today, which was essentially somewhere between, “We’re not sure that their case is justified, because we think that most of them did know,” and, “We can’t afford it even if their case is justified.” Frankly, neither of those arguments will wash. The Minister, who is, as I said earlier, a decent man, must know that, just as the Prime Minister certainly feigned to know it before the general election. The question must therefore be asked, did the Prime Minister not know or did he not care? Was he careless about the support that he offered the WASPI women or did he not know what the Minister has just said?

I end with Winston Churchill, because I can do no better. He said:

“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived”.

This is deceit—nothing less, nothing more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by changes to the State Pension age.