UK
I Won’t Stop Fighting for the WASPI Women – Rebecca Long-Bailey MP
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP secured a debate in Parliament this week on the compensation for WASPI women impacted by the DWP’s Maladministration of State Pension Age Changes. You can read an edited version of her speech published below.
I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of fearless women who have been campaigning relentlessly to secure justice on this matter for decades now, and to remember all those women who have died while waiting for justice.
My personal thanks go to the campaign groups who have provided briefings to the All Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Age Inequality for Women, including CASPI, WASPI, WASPI 2018, CEDAWinLAW, Pension Partners 4 Justice, Pension United, WASPI Scotland and 1950s Women of Wales, as well as many individuals who have been in touch. My thanks, also, to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate.
As Lord Bryn Davies, a pensions expert has stated:
“The UK’s pension system was designed for men, by men. It systematically favoured men, with the result that they received higher State pensions and even higher private pensions. Hence, the gender pensions gap. The only feature that favoured women was that the National Insurance pension was paid to women from age 60, whereas it was paid to men from age 65.”
In 2010, that single advantage was taken away, without consultation and without regard to the other factors that meant women of that era were worse off financially and ended up with worse pensions.
That was bad enough.
What was worse though… is that they weren’t even told about it.
Many women were left destitute, some even lost their homes.
They were already disadvantaged and discriminated against. These women began work in an era when it was legal to pay female workers less than men and they often stepped out of the workforce to raise families or look after loved ones because there was no wrap around care then, losing out on paying stamps but also on paying into a private pension.
And overnight these disgraceful changes were dumped on them without their knowledge. Many had already handed their in notice at work and in many cases were forced to exist on meagre welfare benefits, that left them living a hand to mouth existence.
So hundreds of women started to raise the alarm. When the previous Government failed to take action, they escalated complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who began a lengthy investigation spanning years. They chose only a sample of six cases to focus on.
The report published in March last year, uncovered internal DWP memos from 2005, that showed DWP officials knew considerable numbers of women were unaware of the planned changes.
And whilst many felt the report did not go far enough on suggested redress, and was too limited in the cases it assessed, it did confirm what the women already knew:
That they had suffered injustice, that the DWP was guilty of maladministration in failing to properly communicate changes, that redress was duly owed.
So when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions’ responded to the report in December there was real hope that this scandal would finally end. It was there in black and white.
But sadly it didn’t, and women were left shocked and angry.
Whilst the Government agreed with the finding of maladministration and apologised, no redress would be forthcoming, and contrary to the ombudsman they felt the majority of women did know of changes to pension age and that based on DWP research sending the women a letter earlier would not have been effective.
Which I am sure most people would agree is bizarre. Its pretty effective when it’s a bill addressed to you coming through your door, it’s pretty effective when it’s a hospital appointment, it’s pretty effective on the joyous occasion when HMRC sends a tax rebate cheque.
So I ask, honestly, why would 1950’s born women have actively refused to open letters with their name on from the DWP?
Many of the campaign groups are also clear that the statistics used by the Government to justify no redress are misquoted and misinformed, painting a picture completely at odds with the experiences of thousands of impacted women, the Ombudsman’s findings, and independent research results.
For example, DWP research in 2003 showed only 43% of all women affected by the changes knew their State Pension Age was 65 or between 60 and 65. Even the report itself comments “This low figure provides cause for concern and shows that information about the increase in SPA is not reaching the group of individuals who arguably have the greatest need to be informed”
Independent research (such as an Age UK focus group study from as late as 2011 also found that many women responding believed they were still going to retire with a state pension at 60).
Further the Ombudsman’s report also focused upon the continued failure of the DWP to recognise and respond to this research and feedback. Indeed it had already been flagged by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2013 and the National Audit Office 2016, but the DWP still failed to take any meaningful action.
But sadly instead of these clear findings the Government has relied on abstract figures in 2004 and 2006 DWP research. Suggesting that 73% and 90% of women born in the 1950’s respectively knew their own state pension age was increasing, this is not correct.
And I must flag with the Minister for clarity, the question asked in the surveys was crucial. It was do you know that the broad State Pension Age is due to increase at some point in future – it was not do you know your own state pension age is going to increase.
Next, when an Ombudsman makes recommendations to Government, the usual course of action is for the Government to accept them.
Further on this occasion, the Ombudsman made the incredibly rare decision to lodge their report before Parliament not with the DWP. And they did this because based on their dealings with DWP they already feared that they would be ignored. It was clear how important this was and that they wanted Government to listen.
There have been only eight other occasions where the Ombudsman have felt the need to put down a Special Report in this way, the first being in July 1978.
All resulted in the full recommendations being implemented save one, the Earl Report where the Environment Agency still complied with three of four recommendations and did implement an alternative compensation offer.
So I can’t stress this enough: the decision to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in full here is unprecedented; in fact, it is dangerous.
It sets a precedent that, regardless of what an independent adjudicator recommends concerning a state-level injustice, the Government can now ignore them. It strips away one of the only levers citizens have to hold the Government of the time to account.
All of the amazing campaign groups we in this house work with are clear – this has been a state injustice, it has caused significant harm to these women and a limited Government apology whilst welcome, without any material redress, is not acceptable for a grave injustice that has driven so many into debt or poverty.
And there are lots of solutions the Government could consider. However, as well as refuting the findings Government cites cost and administrative burdens as barriers.
But on this point its important to stress that there have been other, large scale compensation schemes created in response to DWP maladministration for example, the Equitable Life compensation scheme.
Injustice is injustice and if we are to say that victims of one injustice can be compensated by the Government, but victims of another don’t deserve to then that is a very dangerous path to travel down.
And there are options to cover the cost and ensure there is no heavy administrative burden.
The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Financial Remedy sets out its suggestion at level 4 on the severity of injustice scale. They estimate that this would involve additional public spending of between around £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion.
Campaigners have suggested that at an earlier stage, level 5 was under consideration, i.e. between £3,000 and £9,950. That would cost between £10 billion and £31 billion.
But in both cases as Lord Bryn Davies of Brixton, my fellow APPG Co-Chair has highlighted that recommendation nor any other scheme does not preclude tapering the amount paid which would bring down costs considerably.
WASPI, and its sister campaigns, suggest a Bell curve model – they have highlighted other large compensation schemes for DWP maladministration have been viable, and proposed that any financial remedy could allocate the most compensation to those who had the shortest notice of the longest delay to their State Pension age i.e. supporting those most heavily impacted financially in a bell-curve model. They state that redress must be speedy, simple and sensitive
WASPI have proposed this could be in the form of a one-off payment that fairly takes this into account but that Level 4 should not be a ceiling given that not all circumstances are identical to the six sample claimants.
WASPI Scotland have also highlighted how a scheme could be done relatively easily using DWP records of dates of birth or National Insurance prefixes, on either an opt in or opt out basis. This information is readily available and would not require a complex application system, nor processing of such applications.
CEDAWinLAW and 1950s Women of Wales both strongly support a mediation route towards redress. VIA an Early Neutral Evaluation of groups’ asks towards Mediation with the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions via Mediators.
More broadly they raise concerns that discrimination needs to be factored into any redress mechanism stating that that the roll out of state pension ages potentially conflicts with the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) treaty which the UK signed in 1981, and as such the Government should implement a temporary special measure to guarantee an adequate, non-discriminatory pension.
1950s Women of Wales propose this could be an initial lump sum (to allow swift financial relief) with additional payments over a five year period.
And heck, even the previous Chair of the DWP Select Committee suggested a scheme. He wrote to the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to suggest that a rules-based scheme be considered.
The letter describes a system where payments are adjusted within a range (based on the ombudsman’s severity of injustice scale) to reflect the extent of change in the individual’s State Pension age and the notice of the change the individual received. It would be quick to administer, and inexpensive compared to a more bespoke scheme.
He further suggests that there should also be flexibility for individuals to make a case for additional compensation for direct financial loss.
That Chair is now a Government Minster within the DWP….so perhaps the Minster can have a chat with him….
Of course any scheme must be responsible and financially sustainable–
So lets find some options on that too:
WASPI have calculated that HM Treasury have saved a whopping £181 billion alone by increasing the State Pension age.
There’s the options of Applying a 1-2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, raising up to £22 billion a year. Equalise capital gains with income tax rates, raising up to £15.2 billion a year. Apply national insurance to investment income, raising up to £8.6 billion a year.
End the stealth subsides on banks, up to £55 billion over the next five years and even Gordon Brown has advocated for this
So cost should not be a barrier to justice. And in January the Deputy Ombudsman told the Work and Pensions Committee
“If you accept this maladministration and you accept people were affected by that maladministration, there is a conversation about how you factor cost into the need to do justice.”
So the trauma, hardship, poverty and sheer stress these women have been put through for a decade, must make justice for them a matter of urgency.
So I call on the Minister today to listen to these women, listen to the evidence, put considerations of financial redress for 1950s born women who have suffered due to this injustice back on the table, and present any proposal for full and adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
- This article is a published version of a speech given by Rebecca Long-Bailey MP during the debate on Financial Redress for 1950s Women Impacted by Dwp Maladministration of State Pension Age Changes on 3 July 2025.
- Rebecca Long-Bailey is the MP for Salford and a regular contributor for Labour Outlook. You can follow her on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X and Bluesky.
No comments:
Post a Comment