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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.