Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

State Pension Age Changes: Compensation

Monday 27 April 2026 · 6 questions

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 5 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Government made their decision on the PHSO's report on 29 January 2026, after careful consideration.
  • It is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government to take a different view from the PHSO, and this decision was taken seriously.
  • The ombudsman itself, rather than the Government, initially set out that the women affected did not suffer direct financial loss.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Seamus Logan SNP Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Benefits & Welfare
Context

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published a report on 'Women's State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues' on 21 March 2024, recommending certain changes.

Question

What recent assessment has the government made of the potential merits of implementing the recommendations in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's report entitled 'Women's State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues', published on 21 March 2024?

Answer from Torsten Bell

The Government made their decision on this case on 29 January 2026, after giving the PHSO's report careful consideration. The detailed reasons for our decision were set out in our response, which has been placed in the Library of the House.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q2 James MacCleary Lib Dem Lewes
Women & Equalities
Context

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has recommended compensation for millions of women affected by the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI). The PHSO recommendations are generally complied with in 99% of cases.

Question

In 99% of cases, PHSO recommendations are complied with, so does the Minister accept that singling out this group by not complying amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex and age? If not, what possible justification can the Minister offer?

Answer from Torsten Bell

As I have previously said to this House, it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government to take a different view from the PHSO. That does not mean that we have not taken its report incredibly seriously—I have also met its representatives—but as I have said, we set out the detailed reasons for the decision we came to in the response we laid in the House of Commons Library on 29 January.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific claim about discrimination was not directly addressed; instead, the answer referred to previous statements and emphasized the seriousness with which they took the report.

How: As I Have Previously Said, We Set Out The Detailed Reasons For The Decision In A Response

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q3 Jim Shannon DUP Strangford
Benefits & Welfare Women & Equalities
Context

The Department's own 2007 evaluation raised doubts about the effectiveness of letters to pensioners, and thousands of women were deprived of the required notice period.

Question

I ask this question on behalf of the 6,000 WASPI women in Strangford. Given that the Department's own 2007 evaluation raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of letters to pensioners, how can the Minister justify the decision that no direct financial loss occurred when thousands of women were deprived of the 28-month notice period required to adjust their life savings and retirement plans? In the light of the Scottish Parliament's decision to again press this issue in February, will he please do the right thing, put actions before apologies, and deliver help and support?

Answer from Torsten Bell

The hon. Member has raised this issue repeatedly over a number of years, and I recognise that. Specifically on the issues he raises, it was the ombudsman itself, rather than the Government, that initially set out that the women affected did not suffer direct financial loss. The ombudsman was looking narrowly at how the state pension age increase was communicated, which is different from the decision to accelerate the increase in 2011. The hon. Member raises the 2007 evidence showing a minority of people read and remembered such letters.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask for help and support was not addressed directly

How: Under Review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q4 Seamus Logan SNP Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Benefits & Welfare
Context

The Public Health Service Ombudsman stated in March 2024 that these women were not properly informed about changes to their state pension.

Question

These women were not properly informed about changes to their state pension. So said the PHSO on 21 March 2024, just in time for the election when many Labour Members promised to address the issue if elected—a broken promise. Can I ask why the last ministerial meeting with the WASPI women took place in September 2024? Secondly, can he tell the House what work has been undertaken on a properly structured compensation scheme?

Answer from Torsten Bell

The hon. Member raises questions about Labour Members' promises in 2024 and the last ministerial meeting with the WASPI women, which took place in September 2024. He is right that Labour opposed accelerating the state pension age but lost those votes and the court upheld the decision. The debate here focuses on communications rather than decisions. On compensation, our manifesto did not make a commitment to bring forward such measures.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask for work done on compensation was not addressed directly

How: Under Review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q5 Christopher Vince Lab Co-op Harlow
NHS Benefits & Welfare
Context

The question relates to the ombudsman's findings on financial loss due to delayed letters about state pension changes.

Question

Can the Minister detail what the ombudsman found about the financial loss women suffered as a result of the delay in sending out letters? Can he say what this Government are doing to support women in retirement in my constituency?

Answer from Torsten Bell

My hon. Friend rightly raises issues about the distinction between communicating state pension age increases and the decision itself. The speed of increase in 2011 affected millions, particularly women. We are increasing the state pension via the triple lock to up to £2,100 this month. Also, we are investing £26 billion into our NHS.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask about ombudsman findings was not addressed directly

How: Under Review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q6 Mark Garnier Con Wyre Forest
Economy Benefits & Welfare
Context

In opposition, the Prime Minister promised compensation for WASPI women but later opted for a pragmatic approach. The Pension Schemes Bill is under debate.

Question

When his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister promised compensation for WASPI women, but when faced with the economic reality of the costs, he and the Secretary of State chose common sense over ideology. In the spirit of that pragmatism, may I ask the Pensions Minister also to take a sensible, thoughtful approach to mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, and to remove clause 40 altogether?

Answer from Torsten Bell

We have debated this issue extensively in recent weeks, and the House will have another chance to do so later today. Representatives of the industry itself have said that it is in the interests of savers to invest in a wider range of assets, reflecting lessons from open defined-benefit schemes and those in other parts of the world where UK's defined-contribution schemes lack exposure to a broader asset range. We introduced a reserve measure to backstop changes needed to solve collective action problems, ensuring savers do not lose out. Significant protections, including an affirmative vote and savers' interest tests, have been put in place.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask of removing clause 40 was not addressed directly.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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