Women’s State Pension age (Ombudsman report and compensation scheme): Ten Minute Rule Motion

Proposed by Stephen Flynn

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish measures to address the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in its report entitled “Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues”; to require the Se… I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish measures to address the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in its report entitled “Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues”; to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960 inclusive who have been affected by increases in the state pension age; and for connected purposes. I do so with no joy whatsoever—indeed, my reason for doing so is born more out of complete and utter frustration—but because it is the right thing to do for a number of reasons. It is the right thing to do because we require trust in politics, and I think that all of us at this moment in time, certainly in this Chamber, are conscious of the breakdown in trust between ourselves in this Parliament and the public outside. For those of us who have stood alongside the WASPI women for many years, for those of us who have pledged to support the WASPI women for many years, for those of us who promised to take action if we were ever to gain Government office, it is important that that trust is repaid, and my Bill seeks to do that. It seeks to do the right thing by those to whom we made a promise. This is also the right thing to do because, for many of the women who are impacted, this injustice is not alone. Throughout their lives, many will unfortunately have been impacted by the fact that they did not receive a salary comparable to that of their male counterparts. These are women who will have faced the injustice of knowing that they were not able to get themselves up the career ladder simply because they were women and there was a male counterpart. They are the people who will have known that whether or not they were going to have children might well decide what their career opportunities were. It was an unforgivable injustice that they had to experience, and we should not be compounding that injustice by not giving them the compensation they deserve for having their pension entitlement changed. This is also the right thing to do because the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman tells us it that is the right thing to do. If we do not have trust and confidence in the estate in which we operate, and if we do not support the outcomes of our ombudsman, I must simply ask: where are the public to go? Where are they to place their trust? The ombudsman made it abundantly clear that these women were the victims of maladministration, and that the Department for Work and Pensions had not acted in the way that it should have done. Much worse than that, however, the ombudsman was clear that the DWP could not be trusted to rectify the wrong that it had imposed on those women. So what happened? We were effectively delegated the responsibility to respond, and what did we see? We saw a Government turn their back on those women, but not before, of course, they had held placards; not before, of course, they had given warm words when they had felt that it was politically expedient to do so. Let us listen to some of those warm words. Let us start off with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said: “All your working life you’ve got in mind the date on which you can retire and get your pension, and just as you get towards it, the goalposts are moved and you don’t get it, and it’s a real injustice.” Let us look at what the Deputy Prime Minister said: “They want their money back, and quite rightly so.” Let us look at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: “Pleasure to speak in the state pension age debate and talk about women who are being treated so badly. Govt please listen. #WASPI”. The Home Secretary said: “I want to keep fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.” The Business Secretary said: “I have always supported local campaigners and will continue to stand up for the WASPI women of Tameside. I know you will fight on.” Th

Show full motion

Read full debate in Hansard →

Click a row to filter votes below by that party.

"Party position" is how the majority of each party's voting members voted in this division. Parliament does not publish official whipping instructions, so this is derived from the recorded votes. "Rebels" are members who voted against their party's majority; Independent and Speaker roles have no party whip.

Constituencies coloured by how the local MP voted.

No matching MPs found.