Euan Stainbank

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Both the ombudsman and the response of the Secretary of State back in December leave no room for doubt that the Government failed to adequately notify many 1950s-born women about changes to their pension age. This is maladministration and a scandal that has driven many to campaign for justice. I invited the WASPI women in Falkirk to meet me after the statement from the Secretary of State, and the message I took from that meeting is that if we in this place believed that there was no injustice, compensation would never have been paid, regardless of fiscal circumstances, but if we recognise an injustice, as the Department has now done, we must deliver a form of the recommended redress of the ombudsman’s findings. On behalf of the WASPI women in Falkirk, I will ask some of the questions that were raised at that meeting back in December. I would like a response, if possible, from the Minister, for my constituents. Why can the Government pick and choose when to implement ombudsman recommendations? Is the 90% figure derived from a study specific to women who would have been impacted by the pension changes? Is this decision based on cost or a genuine disagreement with the findings of the ombudsman? Further questions were asked, but those are questions on behalf of women who attended that meeting. In the October Budget, the Government did not just promise, but delivered for victims of the Horizon scandal, of the infected blood scandal and of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and for LGBTQ+ veterans. That is a proud record. I put it to the Government that we should think again and deliver redress for the WASPI women as well.