Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

State Pension Age Changes: Compensation

Monday 26 January 2026 · 2 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Mr Lee Dillon expressed concern about the impact of state pension age changes on constituents, particularly WASPI women.
  • The Government committed to consulting on the issue and updating the House by the beginning of March 2026.
  • Sarah Dyke highlighted the financial hardships faced by WASPI women in her constituency, citing a specific case of a woman who lost 50,000 due to the changes.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Lee Dillon Lib Dem Newbury
Benefits & Welfare Women & Equalities
Context

The question arises from the ongoing debate about compensating women born in the 1950s who were negatively impacted by changes to the state pension age. Constituents and MPs have been contacting their representatives regarding this issue.

Question

I am concerned about the strength of feeling among my constituents, including many affected WASPI women who are regularly contacting me. In the Government's determination to address the communication issues around state pension age changes, will they consult with the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, especially if it means denying these women their lived experiences again?

Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)

We will update the House as soon as a conclusion is reached, and we have committed in public to doing so within three months of the decision in December. We are considering the evidence in the round and will report back to the House before the beginning of March. The issue at stake relates narrowly to the communication around state pension age changes rather than the increase itself, which was put in place by a previous coalition Government, not opposed by any Liberal Democrat MPs.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific request for consultation with WASPI women was not directly addressed; instead, the Minister focused on clarifying the scope of the decision-making process and referenced past government actions.

How: Clarified Scope, Referenced Past Decisions

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Sarah Dyke Lib Dem Glastonbury and Somerton
Benefits & Welfare
Context

There are more than 8,000 WASPI women in Glastonbury and Somerton who have been negatively impacted by the state pension age changes. Many of these women, such as Miriam from Martock, face significant financial losses due to these changes.

Question

In my constituency alone, there are more than 8,000 WASPI women, including Miriam from Martock who has lost £50,000 because of the maladministration of state pension age changes. Because she was unable to work, she had to sell her home and live on released capital; now at age 70, she is back in the workforce. Given this situation, will the Minister commit to properly compensating 1950s-born women, and will the Government consult with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman before finalising their response?

Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)

Many Members have constituents who face challenges in the years running up to the state pension age due to issues unrelated to communication, but rather to the increase and acceleration of the state pension age put in place by a previous Liberal Democrat Government. The focus is on understanding the specific issue related to communication around state pension changes. We will update the House as soon as a conclusion is reached within three months of the decision in December.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The Minister did not directly commit to compensation or consulting with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; instead, they focused on clarifying the scope of the current investigation and referencing past government decisions.

How: Clarified Scope, Referenced Past Decisions

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)