Rebecca Long Bailey MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Dec 2025 · Kashmir: Self-determination · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend speaks with great moral clarity. Does he agree that, given that the matter has been decided by the UN, lasting peace in the region cannot be achieved without dialogue that includes the voices and aspirations of the people of Kashmir themselves?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all their hard work in getting us to this point. I recognise the thousands of rail staff who keep our network moving every single day. Their skill, dedication and professionalism were impossible to miss during the pandemic, and once again during the recent tragedy in Huntingdon, when workers ran towards danger to protect others. If we are serious about creating a world-class rail system, then those workers must be at the centre of it. A unified, publicly owned railway will be simpler, safer and more efficient. It will reverse the legacy of privatisation, which carved up the industry and prioritised share dividends over people and service quality. The Bill is great, but I have some fundamental issues that need to be ironed out as the Bill makes its way through the House. If Great British Railways is genuinely being built from dozens of separate organisations, then we need a clear description of its structure. We need clarity on who will actually employ all the people who keep our railways running. More than 100,000 workers are employed by Network Rail and the train operating companies; tens of thousands more jobs are outsourced to security firms, cleaning contractors, catering companies and agencies supplying infrastructure labour. Many of those workers are on insecure, zero-hour terms. Altogether, well over 150,000 people form Britain’s rail workforce, yet sadly those workers cannot say who their future employer will be, what will happen to their pension, or how they might transfer into the new organisation. Although today is a great day, that uncertainty is not fair on them, and it undermines the stability and confidence that the new system needs from day one. We need to see some detail on how workers and their unions will be given a voice. Other public transport bodies, such as Transport for London, Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales, have built-in mechanisms for staff representation on their boards, but Great British Railways does not have any such route. If we want an organisation that benefits from the insights and expertise of the people who operate it, that has to be put in the Bill. We must be honest that the pressures that fell on the workforce over 30 years of privatisation have left deep scars. We saw repeated attempts to hollow out staffing, driver-only operation, de-staffed stations, ticket office closures, aggressive outsourcing and the downgrading of essential roles. The Government’s “Getting Britain Moving” promised to turn the page, and to recognise staff as an asset, not a cost. It pledged to make GBR a single employer that people would be proud to join. That vision was right, but it cannot be delivered if we keep the workforce scattered across a maze of private providers. If GBR is to inherit the contracts of Network Rail and the train operating companies, we should not simply carry forward decades of outsourcing. Cleaning, security, station staff, catering and maintenance are vital parts of the railway. Bringing them back in house is not radical; it is already happening across parts of Scotland and Wales, where insourcing has improved accountability and service quality. Removing the web of contracts would cut the cost of the work that was created by privatisation. I would welcome the Secretary of State’s adopting, in a spirit of constructive partnership, the sensible and pragmatic proposals on such issues from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. They would strengthen the Bill, and help to deliver the railway that we all want to see.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is spot on, and we all have constituency stories that replicate her experience. Finally, there is the question of exclusion. As we have heard, millions of people in Britain do not have reliable digital access, and millions more do not have the basic digital skills required to navigate systems like this. Introducing mandatory digital ID risks shutting people out of work, housing, healthcare and public services, so I urge the Minister: for the sake of our rights, our safety and our democracy, drop this plan.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. We have seen the consequences of reckless data sharing already. All too often, migrant victims of domestic abuse, rape and trafficking have been frightened to report crimes because police forces routinely pass on their information to immigration officers. The harm is real: the offenders go unpunished and communities are less safe. Even if we set aside the civil liberties concerns, there is a basic practical problem here: UK Governments, of all stripes, do not have a good track record of keeping our data safe. The number of serious cyber incidents is rising year on year. Critical institutions from the British Library to the Legal Aid Agency to the One Login platform have already been criticised for major security flaws.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  This is a watershed moment for our country, and not a good one. The argument for digital ID is that it will help tackle illegal working, but sadly the evidence does not stack up. Across Europe, nations with long-standing ID card systems—Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece—have not seen reductions in irregular migration as a result of ID cards. In fact, some have larger shadow economies than our own. Estonia, the poster child for digital ID, actually has a bigger underground economy than Britain. Assuming that this new system will somehow suddenly make rogue employers obey the law, when they have ignored the paper checks for some time, is for the birds. That argument aside, the real fear here is that we will be building an infrastructure that can follow us, link our most sensitive information and expand state control over all our lives. The Minister must understand why people are concerned. This policy does not arrive in a vacuum. It sits alongside a worrying pattern: the accelerated roll-out of facial recognition, attempts to weaken end-to-end encryption, and data laws that strip away privacy protections. We must remember that Britain has no constitutional right to privacy. Parliament can, in a single vote, grant or remove protections that people in other democracies take for granted. When we think of building a nationwide ID system capable of linking health records, education data, housing history and even information about crimes that people have suffered, we should stop, because once that architecture exists, any future Government could misuse it, and we would have very little power to stop them.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this debate, and for his brilliant speech. I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the NUJ parliamentary group. Since 2005, nearly 300 local papers have closed their doors. Millions now live in communities with only one local title, and millions more live in what we can only call news deserts, where meaningful local reporting just does not exist. We all know what that means: when there is no one in the room holding power to account, decisions are taken in the dark. When there is no local reporter at council meetings, in our courts or on our high streets, communities lose their voice. People lose the very information they need to understand what is happening in their constituencies, and what is happening in their lives. The broken business models that we see today are a direct result of the local media market being dominated by a handful of corporations whose priorities have been consolidation, cost-cutting and the extraction of profit from once-thriving community institutions. Three companies now control over half the UK’s local papers and websites, and two companies dominate local radio. The same patterns are being replicated in the national media, with potential takeovers threatening to concentrate nearly half the newspaper market into the hands of a single individual. That is why new market rules must be introduced—not to punish success, but to safeguard the public interest. No private company should control more than 25% of the media market. Those holding more than 15% should be required to divest or establish publicly accountable structures. I must stress that this crisis is not simply about ownership; it is about the hollowing out of newsrooms across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the redundancies at Reach, with over 300 editorial jobs gone in September alone. Titles that once had rich, thriving newsrooms are being left with one dedicated reporter, or sometimes none. Communities are being stripped of their chroniclers. Journalists are being stripped of their livelihoods. While the cuts happen, companies increasingly turn to AI to churn out homogenised, centralised copy. It is content that imitates local voices rather than reflects them, and that is just not journalism; it is misrepresentation, and the public know it. The overwhelming majority of people want transparency in AI-generated news, and they do not believe that the current safeguards are enough. At the same time, tech giants continue to siphon off the advertising revenue that once sustained local titles, while refusing to contribute meaningfully to the journalism they profit from. They have taken billions, paid a fraction back in tax, and flooded our information environment with disinformation, extremism and chaos. This has gone on long enough. It is time for a reset. I urge the Minister to do what was suggested in the NUJ’s news recovery plan, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington did a fantastic job of outlining. The key points from the plan are: reform media ownership rules with a strengthened public interest test; establish a journalism foundation to support new media and invest in public interest journalism; introduce a 6% windfall tax on tech giants; retain public notice requirements, thereby protecting a vital revenue stream and a vital democratic function; designate local papers as assets of community value; reform the local democracy reporting scheme, to ensure that public money supports genuine local journalism; and finally, use the BBC charter renewal to reverse the damaging local radio cuts and guarantee sustainable funding for trusted independent local news.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the importance of involving those at the coalface in the Government’s deliberations on the upcoming media strategy. Would he agree to meet the National Union of Journalists and consult it on the local media strategy?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  When Government choose to act, when they choose to listen and when they choose compassion, millions of lives are changed. The decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty and ease the suffering of almost a million more. It is a humane, necessary intervention, and the Chancellor should rightly be proud of what she has done. All those who campaigned tirelessly for this over the past year should feel immensely proud. I am hopeful that this is just the beginning of a wider ambitious programme of reform to restore fairness, rebuild our economy, and restore the hope, which we thought was lost, that life will get better for every passing generation. I know how hard the Chancellor has worked. She knows that we need money for our public services, after 14 years of crippling austerity, which have held our country back and destroyed our public sector, but restoring the public finances is the first building block of growth. That is not an easy task when we are working with a tax system that has needed fundamental reform for decades. I hope that the next step will be to design a tax system rooted in fairness and clarity, and a long-term strategy that lifts up those on modest incomes, supports young people striving to build their futures and ensures that national prosperity is shared, rather than hoarded. We should eliminate the structural unfairness whereby normal people’s salaries are taxed at higher rates than income derived from wealth, and the freezing of tax rates, which quietly drags millions more people into tax bands that were never designed for them. It was good last week to see the Government introduce an online gambling tax, and a tax on homes worth more than £2 million, but I hope we will now explore the many more options available to us to restore fairness. We could tax capital gains and dividends at the same rate as wages. We could tax share buy-backs, and reintroduce the investment income surcharge that the Tories scrapped in 1984. We could charge VAT on financial services such as wealth management. We could look at a whole plethora of wealth taxes and so much more. The same principles of fairness must extend to the broader financial sector. The banking industry benefits from extraordinary Government support, with deposit guarantees, central bank facilities and vast rounds of quantitative easing, while the public receive little in return. Governments of all stripes continue to grant what is now an annual £23 billion in interest payments on central reserves. That was meant to be a temporary fix to help following the financial crash, but many EU countries have stopped paying that interest. We could look at doing that, too. The same forward-thinking approach is needed on energy policy. Removing green levies from bills will bring welcome relief, but families still face high costs, while energy giants have made more than £125 billion in profits since 2020. The Government have an opportunity to ensure that the energy system works for the public good, and to consider windfall taxes, fair pricing and even forms of public ownership. A resilient, affordable green energy system would strengthen the whole economy. More broadly, the economy urgently needs strengthening. The OBR forecasts only 1.5% growth this year and sluggish productivity for the rest of the decade, and that is the result of 14 years of short-termism, of putting short-term dividend extraction before long-term industrial strategy, and of the UK investing barely 18% of GDP in productive assets. That is far behind countries such as France, Germany, China and India. We are not punching above our weight, but we should. Without proper investment in infrastructure, green industries, modern transport, digital systems and manufacturing, we simply cannot build the prosperous future we deserve. We have made a fantastic start this week. The Chancellor’s strategies—such as Pride in Place, which will see parts of Salford receive £20 million over the next 10 years—are welcome, but we need further announcements on industrial strategy and strategic investments over the coming year. We have waited years for this. We have millions of people who are ready to work, build, care, invent and dream. Let the Budget be the spark that drives wider transformation, so that we have a fairer economy, a fairer society and a Government who match the courage and aspirations of their people.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent was separated from her five-year-old son during the horrors of displacement in Sudan. By a sheer miracle, he made it to Saudi Arabia; he is now staying there temporarily until 1 December, after which time he will be forced to return to Sudan. What can the Foreign Secretary do to support families such as that by way of evacuation pathways or humanitarian schemes?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary is aware that, in the absence of safe and legal routes, the law forces a refugee to set foot on UK soil to seek asylum, which has led to dangerous journeys and no checks or vetting taking place. She has referenced sponsorship as the primary safe route. Could she clarify whether this can be applied for from outside the UK, and what consideration has she made of recommendations by Safe Passage to implement a visa refugee scheme, so that applications can be done from outside the UK, with cases assessed, vetted and decided before a refugee embarks on a dangerous journey here?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for securing the debate. It is a simple principle: profits should be taxed where real economic activity takes place. Yet that simple principle is routinely violated, and multinational corporations move billions through paper subsidiaries, internal loans and royalty payments to places where little or no real business occurs. As we have heard today, the result is devastating. For the United Kingdom alone, it represents tens of billions lost—money that should be funding our hospitals, schools, transport and care. Sadly, the UK’s current approach is still falling short, so what must we do? First, we need real transparency. Public country-by-country reporting must be mandatory. beneficial ownership registers must be complete, verified and accessible to all, and there must be comprehensive disclosure of cross-border affiliate transactions of intra-group pricing and payments in dividends flowing to low or zero-tax jurisdictions. Secondly, HMRC must be properly equipped. The Department is dramatically under-resourced, so it needs resources, specialist expertise and the independence to pursue large-scale investigations without political constraint. The diverted profits tax should be strengthened, and penalties must actually bite. Thirdly, we need structural reform at home. The UK must stop indulging secrecy within its own network of territories. It should require those jurisdictions to meet the same standards of transparency and accountability as the mainland. We must make domestic law fit for purpose by ensuring that multinationals cannot hide behind opaque structures, and that the UK does not act as a facilitator for profit shifting through low-tax dependencies. Broadly, we must lead reform on the international stage. Britain should champion stronger global agreements—not merely a minimalist 15% tax floor, but a framework that stops profit shifting altogether. That means automatic exchange of tax information, higher global minimum rates, global minimum tax enforcement standards, pressure for jurisdictions that facilitate profit shifting to reform, and co-ordinated sanctions imposed against them if they refuse to co-operate. Fundamentally, this is about fairness, accountability and the very future of democracy itself.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Ending Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the co-sponsors of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We start from a position where we have lost more than 260,000 social rented homes in the last decade. Even now, most so-called affordable homes are out of reach for the people who need them most. Ultimately, if we are serious about ending homelessness, we must give local authorities the power, funding and freedom to build social homes at scale. That starts with looking at the affordable homes programme, which is sadly not enough. It too often delivers homes at supposedly affordable rents that, in many places, are anything but. Councils need grant rates high enough to deliver homes at true social rent so that ordinary families can actually afford them. While we are at it, we must lift the shackles from council borrowing and address the issues that councils face in meeting borrowing rules. From cuts to budgets, maintenance backlogs, right-to-buy losses and falling rent yields as local housing allowance fails to meet housing spend, housing revenue accounts are in a state of crisis and that must be addressed to remove barriers to borrowing. We must also fix the planning system and rebuild council capacity. Decades of cuts have gutted planning departments and valuable experience has been lost. We must also rebuild those local housing teams and council-owned development companies that can plan for the long term and with social purpose at their core. Salford city council has led the way on that with its own model, Dérive, and that could be replicated across the country. I know that the Minister agrees with much of that, which is why I am hopeful about her response. When we truly invest in council housing, we do not just end homelessness; we create jobs, strengthen communities, cut carbon emissions and give people a stake in their own future.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his poignant opening remarks. The White Paper has caused huge fear among many of my constituents who work here, have built lives here and have families and friendships here. They pay tax towards our public services, they volunteer and they play a huge part in our local communities. Many of those workers came here to support our economy. They were invited by UK businesses to fill key skills gaps in defence, manufacturing, transport, aerospace, health, prisons and social care, to name just a few sectors. The White Paper introduces preferential immigration routes for what it calls high-value contributors, including a shorter qualifying period for ILR and citizenship, but it fails to define what sectors or roles actually qualify and there has not been an impact assessment on the loss of these workers to each sector. Oxford Economics found that in defence alone, in just one north-west manufacturer—BAE Systems—each skilled migrant employee contributes over £84,000 per year to the UK economy. Moreover, as well as being economically valuable, they are integral to our national security and sovereign capability. Will the Minister provide reassurance today and outline the sectors whose workers will qualify as high-value contributors, and which sectors will be provided with an exemption? The White Paper also fails to provide any transitional protections for current skilled migrants already working here on the five-year skilled worker visa pathway to ILR. That is causing anxiety to workers and businesses alike. Again, will the Minister reassure these workers today and confirm that there will be no attempt to make retrospective changes? Social care is another sector that would collapse without the support of skilled migrant labour, but it has endemic low pay and exploitation. I have heard at first hand harrowing stories from workers who were brought here on skilled worker visas, and have been threatened, exploited and frequently underpaid—or not paid at all—but because they are reliant on visa support from their employer, they are often forced to keep silent about these abuses or face having their visa removed. To protect those migrant workers, in addition to the retention of the five-year route to ILR and a commitment not to apply retrospective changes, I also ask the Minister to consider sector-wide visa schemes in social care, enabling them to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. This extends beyond social care; there must also be greater protection for migrant workers in all sectors from exploitation and the strengthening of access to trade union rights. Finally, the second group of constituents who are most affected in Salford—and have contacted me in great fear—are those within the Hong Kong community. Salford is home to one of the largest Hongkonger communities in the UK, and I was proud to attend their community awards recently, which awarded members of the community for their efforts in doing good for the city of Salford, from litter picks to supporting those most in need. It was clear that all these people were dedicated to giving back to the society and economy that embraced them. Many came as part of the BNO visa scheme set up in recognition of the UK’s historic and moral commitments to the people of Hong Kong. Many were British citizens prior to 1997, and they maintain British nationality via the BNO passport. I am sure the Minister will agree that the fear that is caused within this community is unnecessary. I hope that today he can finally provide reassurance that the BNO visa scheme will be exempt from the changes proposed, and provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on the other points that I have raised. I welcome him to his new position; I am sure he will do fantastically.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman has been a formidable campaigner for the women affected and an ally in the campaign in this House. He is correct. I will explain in a moment how unprecedented it is for a Government to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in this way, and how dangerous it is, in fact, for our democracy and for citizens’ ability to hold their Governments to account. I will turn back to the statistics that the Government relied on in their response to the ombudsman’s report. Instead of the clear findings that I have outlined, the Government relied on abstract figures from research carried out in 2004 and 2006 by the Department for Work and Pensions, which suggested that 73% and 90%, respectively, of women born in the 1950s knew that their own state pension age was increasing, but that is not correct. I must flag this with the Minister for clarity: the question asked in the surveys was crucial. It was, “Do you know that the broad state pension age is due to increase at some point in the future?”. It was not, “Do you know that your own state pension age is going to increase?”. It is wrong, in my view, to make the assertion that 73% and 90% of women knew that their state pension age was changing, because the facts prove that they simply did not. Next, when an ombudsman makes recommendations to Government, as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has alluded to, the usual course of action is for the Government to accept them. Further, on this occasion, the ombudsman made the incredibly rare decision to lodge its report before Parliament, not before the Department for Work and Pensions, which it did because, based on its dealings with the DWP, it already feared and knew that the report would be ignored. It is clear that the ombudsman realised this was an important issue, and that it wanted Government to listen. There have been only eight other occasions where the ombudsman has felt the need to put down a special report in this way, the first being in 1978. All resulted in the full implementation of the recommendations save one, the Earl report. In that case, the Environment Agency still complied with three out of the four recommendations, and on the fourth implemented an alternative compensation offer. I cannot stress enough that the decision to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in full is unprecedented, and is, in fact, dangerous, as it sets a precedent that regardless of what an independent adjudicator recommends concerning state-level injustice, the Government can now ignore them. It strips away one of the only levers that citizens have to hold the Government of the time to account. All the amazing campaign groups that we in this House work with are clear: this has been a state injustice. It has caused significant harm to these women, and while welcome, a limited Government apology is, without any material redress, not acceptable for a grave injustice that has driven so many into debt or poverty.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is not. That is why I place so much hope in the Minister to take action on this. To conclude, there were two statements made by colleagues that stood out for me. The first was from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who said that in the name of decency, justice must be done. The Minister must recognise that, so I urge him to get round the table with the women and present a package before Parliament that we can all support and celebrate. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, we are not going to give up until justice is done, and neither are the women. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House notes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report on Women’s State Pension Age, HC 638, published in March 2024, which found that maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control; further notes that there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995; and also notes that, given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, the PHSO took the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene, laying their report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and asked Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right. She, too, is a fantastic advocate for the women in her constituency. These women should not be forced to go through lengthy court battles, and the Government must recognise the cost of having to undertake those court battles versus the amount that they would actually pay through a redress scheme. Ultimately, the court is likely to find in favour of these women based on the facts that we have been presented with as parliamentarians. Indeed, CEDAWinLAW and 1950s Women of Wales both strongly support a mediation route towards redress, via an early neutral evaluation of groups’ asks towards mediation with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions via mediators. More broadly, they raise concerns that discrimination needs to be factored into any redress mechanism, stating that the roll-out of state pension ages potentially conflicts with the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—CEDAW—treaty, which the UK signed in 1981. As such, the Government should implement a temporary special measure to guarantee an adequate, non-discriminatory pension.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is spot on. The women have suffered an injustice, and they have been ignored. They should not have had to fight for so long. The sad fact is that already so many women have died waiting to see justice. What will it take to fix this? Will it take an ITV drama to shine a light on what has happened before everybody gets angry enough to do something about it? I do not know the answer to that, but what I do know is that the facts are clear. Even the ombudsman’s report sets that out, and the Government need to act urgently. The hon. Lady has been a fantastic campaigner in this House over the years. and I am sure the women are truly thankful for her support. The 1950s Women of Wales propose, in line with CEDAWinLAW, that redress could be an initial lump sum to allow swift financial relief, with additional payments over a five-year period. Even the previous Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee suggested a scheme. He wrote to the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to suggest that a rules-based scheme be considered. The letter describes a system where payments are adjusted within a range, based on the ombudsman’s severity of injustice scale, to reflect the extent of change in the individual state pension age and the notice of the change the individual received. It would be quick to administer, he said, and inexpensive compared with a more bespoke scheme. He further suggested that there should also be flexibility for individuals to make a case for additional compensation for direct loss. And that Select Committee Chair is now a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions! Who knew? Perhaps the Minister could sit down and have a cup of tea with himself to discuss the plans he had before he entered office. Any scheme must be responsible and financially sustainable, so let us have a look at some options on that, too.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I want to thank the whole range of colleagues who have spoken today. It has been a fantastic collegiate debate that has shown the House at its best. For those outside of the Chamber who are watching, the campaign continues. It is a campaign that brings so many of us together, and there are so many formidable campaigners in this Chamber who need to be celebrated. I know that the Minister is in a difficult position, and I have a lot of time for him, as I say. I know that he is bound by the Government’s current position on this issue, but I want to pick up on some of the information he gave in his speech. He said that I referred to a piece of research from 2024, but it was actually from 2003, and it is research that the ombudsman itself relies on in saying that 43% of women did not know that the state pension age was increasing. The Minister again made the point about letters being ineffective, but he must understand that to people watching this debate, that is an absurd thing to say. I know that he says that DWP research states that, but the research is absurd and does not really have any basis in reality. I do not want the Minister to go down in history as the man who denied justice for the 1950s-born women— I honestly do not. I want to see action on this, and I want him to go down as the person who finally managed to award these women justice. He has to understand that the arguments being put forward by the Government are absurd to say the least. In fact, in denying the ombudsman’s report, the argument is akin to arguing that the world is flat.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House notes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report on Women’s State Pension Age, HC 638, published in March 2024, which found that maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control; further notes that there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995; and also notes that, given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, the PHSO took the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene, laying their report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and asked Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice. Following last night’s horrific news, I just want to send my deepest condolences to the family of Diogo Jota and his brother, and to the city of Liverpool. I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of fearless women who have been campaigning relentlessly to secure justice on this matter for decades now, and to remember all those women who have died waiting for justice. My personal thanks go to the campaign groups who have provided briefings to the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, including CASPI, WASPI, WASPI 2018, CEDAWinLAW, Pension Partners 4 Justice, Pension United, WASPI Scotland and 1950s Women of Wales, as well as many individuals who have been in touch. My thanks also go to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and to numerous colleagues across the House who have been instrumental in campaigning for the women and in securing today’s debate. As Lord Bryn Davies, co-chair of the APPG and a pensions expert, stated: “The UK’s pension system was designed for men, by men. It systematically favoured men, with the result that they received higher state pensions and even higher private pensions. Hence, the gender pensions gap. The only feature that favoured women was that the National Insurance pension was paid to women from aged 60, whereas it was paid to men from aged 65.” But in 2010, that single advantage was taken away, without consultation and without regard to the other factors that meant women of that era were worse off financially and ended up with worse pensions. That was bad enough. What was worse, though, is that they were not even told about it. Many women were left destitute; some even lost their homes. These women were already disadvantaged and discriminated against. They began work in an era when it was legal to pay female workers less than men, and often stepped out of the workforce to raise families or look after loved ones because there was no wraparound care, losing out on not only paying stamps but paying into a private pension. Overnight, these disgraceful changes were dumped on them without their knowledge. Many had already handed in their notice at work, and in many cases they were forced to exist on meagre welfare benefits that left them living a hand-to-mouth existence. Hundreds of women began to raise the alarm. When the previous Government failed to take action, they escalated their complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which began a lengthy investigation spanning years, although it chose to focus on a sample of only six cases. Its report, published in March last year, uncovered internal Department for Work and Pensions memos from 2005 showing that officials knew that considerable numbers of women were unaware of the planned changes. While many women feel that the report did not go far enough on suggested redress, and that it was too limited in the cases that it assessed, it confirmed what the women already knew: that they had suffered injustice, that the DWP was guilty of maladministration in failing to properly communicate changes, and that redress was duly owed. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions responded to the report in December, there was genuine hope that the scandal would finally end—it was there, in black and white. Sadly, it did not, and women were left shocked and angry. While the Government agreed with the finding of maladministration and apologised, no redress would be forthcoming. Further, contrary to the ombudsman, they actually felt that the majority of women did know about changes to their pension age, based on Department for Work and Pensions research, and that sending the women letters would not have been effective, which I am sure most people would agree is bizarre. It is pretty effective when people receive a bill addressed to them through their door, or a letter about a hospital appointment. It is also pretty effective on the very rare but joyous occasion that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs gives people a tax rebate cheque. So, honestly, why would 1950s-born women have actively refused to open letters with their name on from the DWP? It makes no sense.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has been a fantastic campaigner for her constituents during her time in this House. I say in response that this issue unites the House; we are all angry about the injustice that these women have faced, and we want the Government to take action. Spanning various Governments and various Administrations, these women have had to fight relentlessly just for what they are owed, and that is not acceptable. I have no doubt that there are numerous colleagues at Cabinet level who agree with the women’s cause. They may be struggling to find options and answers, and that is what we are here today to provide. I hope that they are listened to and acted on, because injustice is injustice. If we are saying that victims of one injustice can be compensated by the Government, but that victims of another are not so deserving, we are travelling down a very dangerous path. There are options to cover the cost and ensure that there is no heavy administrative burden, and I will give a few of them. The ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedy sets out its suggestion at level four on the severity of injustice scale, and it estimates that such remedy would involve public spending of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion. Campaigners have suggested that an earlier stage—level five—was under consideration, and that would cost between £10 billion and £31 billion. In both cases, as Lord Bryn Davies of Brixton has highlighted, that recommendation and, indeed, any other scheme would not preclude tapering the amount paid, which would bring down costs considerably. WASPI and its sister campaigns suggest a bell curve model. They have highlighted the fact that other large compensation schemes for DWP maladministration have been viable, and proposed that any financial remedy could allocate the most compensation to those who have had the shortest notice of the longest delay to their state pension age—in other words, supporting those most heavily impacted in a bell curve model. They state that redress must be speedy, simple and sensitive, and they want to avoid legal action. They have asked the Government to enter into talks to address this very issue. The WASPI group proposes that this remedy could take the form of a one-off payment that fairly takes that into account, but that level four should not be a ceiling, given that not all circumstances are identical to the six sample claimants. WASPI Scotland has also highlighted how a scheme could be operated relatively easily, using DWP records of dates of birth or national insurance prefixes, on either an opt-in or an opt-out basis. That information is readily available and would not require complex application systems or the processing of such applications.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is a powerful advocate for women in Northern Ireland. He is right: what has happened is wrong, plain and simple. We need to see action today. I promise I am coming to the end, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not want to try your patience. There are options to make sure that schemes are financially sustainable. WASPI has calculated that HM Treasury has saved a whopping £181 billion by increasing the state pension age alone. Other options include applying a 1% to 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise up to £22 billion a year, or equalising capital gains tax with income tax rates, which would raise £15.2 billion a year. Applying national insurance to investment income would raise £8.6 billion a year. Ending stealth subsidies on banks could raise up to £55 billion over the next five years—something even Gordon Brown has advocated. Cost does not need to be, and should not be, a barrier to justice. In January the Deputy Ombudsman told the Work and Pensions Committee that the DWP at the time knew that the women did not know, and that they failed to act. He said: “if you accept this maladministration and you accept people were affected by that maladministration, there is a conversation about how you factor cost into the need to do justice.” The trauma, hardship, poverty and sheer stress that these women have been put through for a decade must make justice for them a matter of urgency. I have a lot of time for the Minister. I call on him to get round the table with these women and to listen to them. I ask him to listen to the evidence, put considerations of financial redress for 1950s-born women who have suffered back on the table and allow full and adequate parliamentary scrutiny for any proposal, as the ombudsman intended.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has been a formidable campaigner for these women. In answer to her question, no, I have not had any joyous information from the Government as of yet, which is why we are here today. I will outline why I think the Government’s statement and response to the ombudsman’s report was misinformed. While I understand the financial difficulties the Government face, options are available, and cost should never be a barrier to addressing injustice. Many of the campaign groups are clear that the statistics used by Government to justify no redress are misquoted and misinformed, painting a picture that is completely at odds with the experiences of thousands of impacted women, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has outlined, the ombudsman’s findings and the results of independent research. Research by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2003 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the changes knew that their state pension age was changing. The research itself even comments that: “This low figure provides cause for concern and shows that information about the increase in SPA is not reaching the group of individuals who arguably have the greatest need to be informed.” Independent research, including a focus group study by Age UK from as late as 2011, has also found that many women believed that they were still going to retire with a state pension at 60. Further, the ombudsman’s report also focused on the continued failure of the DWP to recognise and respond to this research and feedback. Indeed, this point was flagged by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2013 and the National Audit Office in 2016, but the DWP still failed to take any meaningful action.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion. He is a fantastic campaigner for 1950s women in Scotland and has done an enormous amount of work in this House to support their cause. As I said earlier, we all recognise the difficulties that the Government face. They inherited a difficult financial situation, but that is no excuse to deny these women justice. Financial options are available, some of which I shall outline, and some of which my colleagues will outline, too. As well as refuting the findings of the ombudsman, the Government cite cost and administrative burdens as barriers, but it is important to stress that there have been other large-scale compensation schemes created in response to DWP maladministration. The Equitable Life Compensation Scheme is a key example.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We all know the famous quote: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” It is a litmus test for the morality and integrity of our country’s values. In recent years, the United Nations has twice reported on the conditions for disabled people in the UK, finding that there were “grave and systematic violations” of human rights. Sadly, the Bill as it stands will worsen this situation. Despite concessions, and even excluding existing claimants, brutal cuts will still push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, sick and disabled people into poverty. Existing claimants will live in fear that if their situation changes and they are reassessed, they could lose everything under the new system. Disabled children will look to the future with trepidation, knowing that in adulthood the support that would have helped them to live a full and fruitful life might not be there. I truly welcome the proposals to support with a little help those who could work, but according to the Learning and Work Institute, the number of people who will be helped is nominal, at between 1% and 3%—a finding echoed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which concludes that we might expect increases in employment in only the tens of thousands. Although the concessions made over the weekend are welcome, they create a two-tier system, as the amount of support that someone receives will now depend on when they made their claim. That is simply not fair, especially as those who require help need this support through no fault of their own. Yes, it is clear that our punitive and broken welfare system needs reform—it drives disabled people into poverty. However, there should have been proper consultation with those most directly affected in order to build a system that truly nurtures, but that has not happened. The Government should have published assessments on the impact of these updated proposals on the poverty of future claimants, those undergoing reassessments and their carers, but they have not. The Government should have assessed the knock-on impact on local authorities, the NHS and the charity sector and the scope for non-payment of household debts as people pushed into poverty desperately seek help elsewhere, but they have not. We are being asked today to vote on a Bill and rush it through without consultation or knowing the full picture, and that cannot be right. If this is about cost, I recognise the financial challenges facing the Government—challenges that are a direct result of 14 years of mismanagement and under-investment by the previous Government—but the sad thing is that there are alternatives. The Government could introduce higher taxes on extreme wealth, end the stealth subsidies for banks and tax gambling fairly and properly. The list of alternatives is endless. Every single disability organisation is against this brutal Bill. If we ignore them and say that it is okay to treat one group of people as lesser than another and okay to neglect the vulnerable, undermine their rights and dignity and push them into poverty, what does that honestly say about the true measure of our society? I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench: please pull back from the brink now, before it is too late, and withdraw this Bill.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Last night, “Newsnight” covered the Daily Mirror’s three-year investigation into the nuked blood scandal, in which thousands of troops had blood and urine monitored and even chest x-rays during nuclear weapons testing, but the results were kept from their medical records and their suffering was denied for decades. I am a fierce supporter of those men and their families, and the Deputy Prime Minister has met them with me, so does she agree that, in this Armed Forces Week, time is now of the essence, and these elderly veterans deserve answers, justice, and an apology?