WASPI campaigners have vowed to continue to fight for compensation payouts (Image: Getty)
Newly appointed Work and Pensions Secretary, Torsten Bell, appeared before MPs to defend Labour’s decision not to compensate WASPI women.
MPs from across the political spectrum spoke out at the debate in Westminster Hall this week (January 15) to condemn the Government’s decision not to grant payouts for the women. One member blasted the move as an “absolute betrayal”.
WASPI campaigners (Women Against State Pension Inequality) have battled for years to get compensation for the 1950s-born women, claiming they were not properly informed of the sharp hike of their state pension age from 60 to 65 and then 66.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman previously found there was ‘maladminstration’ in how the changes were communicated, and in a report published in March 2024, it recommended payouts of between £1,000 and £2,950.
Mr Bell took up the ministerial position from Emma Reynolds this week, after she moved over to become Economics Secretary, taking up the role previously held by Tulip Siddiq.
Below is the full transcript of Mr Bell’s statement, with some breaks for where there were interjections from MPs:
“I thank the right honourable member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing a debate on this important topic.
“I also want to thank him, if slightly less enthusiastically, for its timing, on my first day in office, which also explains the delay raised by the right honourable member for Torbay (Steve Darling) in answering his named day question [referred to in the debate].
“I am under no illusions that everyone in this Chamber, or almost everyone in this Chamber, will agree with everything that I am about to say.
“But all of us listening to this debate and to the important points raised by right honourable members have benefited from it.
“We all recognise the context for this debate, which is the squeeze on living standards that has affected women born in the 1950s just as it has the entire country.
“These are issues that are important to many women, including my aunt in west Wales, born in 1955, 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 members for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), that women of that generation have faced many difficulties and particular discrimination. People have spoken powerfully about that.
“It is right that today’s debate gives those women’s long-held concerns the consideration they deserve, just as it was right that the Government did so in making the decision we are debating today.
“That is also why my predecessor [Emma Reynolds] was the first minister in eight years to meet WASPI limited.
“It’s why the Ombudsman’s investigations and reports were considered by the Government in detail, and why we look closely at what Parliament has said.
“So while 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 member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) requested, it is worth reiterating the point that several Members have raised: that the Ombudsman’s report was not about the decision to increase the state pension age for women in 1995, or to accelerate those increases in 2011.
“Those decisions were the focus of many members’ remarks, including the member for South Shields (Emma Lewell-Buck).
“Those decisions were taken by Parliament, including by many of the members here today, and they were upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2020.”
READ MORE WASPI compensation for this particular region suggested in new update
[…]
“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.
“The Secretary of State has apologised for that delay. We are determined to learn the lessons so that we avoid similar mistakes happening again.
“Firstly, 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 this has already begun. This will build on changes that are already under way, like our online ‘Check your State Pension forecast’ service, which provides a forecast of the level of your state pension, but also information about when you can take it.
“Now 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 with us today.
“The Ombudsman says these delays did not result in women suffering from direct financial loss, but that there was maladministration, and we agree.”
At this point, there was a question from independent MP, Ayoub Khan, about the fact the Prime Minister previously said there was injustice in how the WASPI women were treated, and as such he should honour that now he is in power.
Mr Bell said in response: “The Labour Party did oppose the acceleration for 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 those decisions.”
Continuing with his statement, Mr Bell said: “We do not agree with the Ombudsman’s approach to injustice or indeed to remedy.
“The members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly noted that is rightly unusual, and it should be unusual, but 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.”
[…]
“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—that sending letters earlier would have affected whether women knew their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunities to make an informed decision.”
Pensions minister Torsten Bell delivers his statement (Image: Parliament TV)
Conservative MP Sir John Hayes then asked about an element from the Ombudsman’s report, which he claimed showed a “clear majority” of the women did not know about the change.
The report states: “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.”
Mr Bell said in reply: “The 43% figure that he is referring to refers to all women. What the Ombudsman didn’t 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 that I am quoting come from. The same survey was used by the ombudsman, but it is focused on the women who are actually affected by this change.”
He went on with his statement later: “It would not be a reasonable or fair use of taxpayers’ 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 £10.5billion, less than the scheme previously proposed by the right honourable 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 whether a tailored scheme could be delivered at length, but it simply wasn’t a viable option.
“The Ombudsman’s report itself 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.”
[…]
“We do not also believe that paying a flat rate to all women would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.
“Today several of the members have raised questions about the specific research findings that I want to address.
“It is important to say that the evidence on what women knew about the state pension age changes was robust.
“The same research was used by the Ombudsman, who clearly did not have concerns about its validity.
“I have heard members today, and many have made powerful speeches. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, not least from my aunt.
“There are many women born in the 1950s who worked hard in low-paid jobs, often balancing this with raising a family.
“The Government has 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, 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 the state pension age was increasing.
“Even for those who didn’t, we know that sending letters earlier would not have made a difference in most cases.
“So while I know this decision will be disappointing, as we are hearing, and many have had frustrations at watching this debate drag on for years, we believe it is the right course of action.
“But it is of course also right that Governments are held to account for that decision, as is happening today.”
