s the cost of living continues to rise, its impact on employees in the UK has become a cause of concern. HR software provider Ciphr recently conducted a comprehensive online survey to understand how increasing living costs are affecting individuals at work. The survey, which took place between 12-15 June 2023, involved 1,000 UK adults working in organisations with at least 26 employees. The results shed light on the challenges faced by the workforce in the face of financial pressures.

According to Ciphr's survey, a significant majority of employees, three out of four (76%), admitted to feeling stressed or overwhelmed at times due to the soaring cost of living. This stress can have a severe impact on mental health and productivity, affecting both the employees and their employers.

In response to the increasing living costs, nearly a third of respondents (31%) took the step of asking their employers for a pay rise. This shows that many individuals are struggling to make ends meet and are seeking financial relief from their organisations.

Another significant finding of the survey was that over a third of employees (34%) have been actively searching for a better paying job. The fear of being unable to cope with the mounting expenses has pushed these individuals to seek alternative employment opportunities that offer better remuneration.

However, one of the most concerning revelations of the survey was that the fear of losing wages due to illness has led over half (52%) of the respondents to continue working even when they were unwell. This is an increase from the previous year, highlighting the growing financial strain on employees.

The survey also brought to light some disparities between in-person and remote workers. Over two-thirds (64%) of employees with in-person roles felt compelled to attend work while feeling unwell due to financial constraints. In contrast, two-fifths (38%) of hybrid and remote workers faced a similar situation. This difference suggests that remote workers might have more flexibility to take time off when they are sick, possibly due to reduced commuting costs and increased work-life balance.

The survey also highlighted gender disparities in the impact of rising living costs. More women than men reported having worked through illness (55% of women compared to 47% of men) because they couldn't afford to lose wages. Additionally, women appeared to be more stressed about the increasing cost of living (80% of women vs. 70% of men). These findings raise concerns about gender-related financial challenges in the workplace.

Ciphr's survey delved into industry-specific challenges and found that employees in retail and hospitality were statistically more likely to work while unwell due to financial constraints (81% and 78% respectively). This reveals the financial vulnerability of workers in these industries and raises questions about worker rights and protections.

The survey conducted by HR software provider Ciphr paints a concerning picture of the impact of rising living costs on the UK workforce. Stress, pay rise requests and job hunting for better pay are all symptoms of the financial strain faced by employees. Moreover, the fear of losing wages has forced a significant number of workers to attend work even when they are unwell, potentially exacerbating health issues and reducing overall productivity. Addressing these challenges will require a collective effort from employers, policymakers and society as a whole to ensure fair wages, job security and a supportive work environment for all employees in the face of the continuing cost-of-living crisis.

A new study conducted by Pearn Kandola, reveals that despite a majority of UK adults acknowledging the existence of weight bias at work, a significant number of employees (40 per cent) would not report weight discrimination to HR, deeming it not "serious enough."

The Weight Discrimination at Work (2023) Report collected data from 1,427 UK employees and found that 70 per cent of respondents believe weight discrimination occurs in their workplace, with nearly half (47 per cent) considering it a problem. These findings shed light on the pressing issue of weight discrimination, highlighting the need for organisations and HR departments to address this issue and foster a more inclusive and supportive work environment.

The study highlights that weight discrimination is a pervasive issue in the workplace, with 32 per cent of respondents witnessing someone being discriminated against due to their weight. Unfortunately, only 11 per cent of these incidents are reported to managers or HR, with many employees not considering it significant enough to warrant action. This reluctance to report can perpetuate the problem and prevent measures from being taken to address weight discrimination effectively.

While weight itself is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, it should be noted that weight discrimination claims can still be raised under the umbrella of disability and sex discrimination coverage. If a person's weight is linked to underlying health conditions, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled staff. Moreover, weight discrimination could also fall under sex discrimination if there are differing attitudes towards overweight males and females.

Despite the legal grounds for addressing weight discrimination, the study indicates that many organisations are not proactive in promoting weight equality in the workplace. Only 20 per cent of businesses have taken action to tackle weight discrimination and a mere eight per cent offer education around this issue. These figures demonstrate a need for HR departments and organisations to take a stand on weight-related discrimination and actively work to embed inclusivity in their corporate culture.

Binna Kandola - Partner at Pearn Kandola - emphasizes the importance of open discussions to challenge stereotypes associated with weight discrimination. He suggests that organisations involved in recruitment, promotion and talent identification should be educated about weight discrimination and its impact on employees' careers and experiences at work.

Zofia Bajorek, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Employment Studies, points out that weight-based discrimination may still be considered acceptable to many individuals. To combat this issue, she advocates for an urgent debate about recognising obesity as a disease and including it as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. This change could help employers better understand their obligations towards employees living with obesity and reduce discrimination over time.

The Weight Discrimination at Work (2023) Report sheds light on the prevalence of weight discrimination in UK workplaces. Despite a majority of adults acknowledging its existence, a significant number of employees hesitate to report it as a serious issue. However, by acknowledging and tackling this problem head-on, businesses can create a more supportive and equitable work environment for all employees, regardless of their weight or body size.

As the cost of living continues to rise, UK employees are feeling the financial strain, with a significant impact on their overall well-being and work-life balance. A recent survey conducted by Ciphr - a leading UK-based provider of integrated HR, payroll, learning and recruitment solutions - shone light on how these mounting expenses are affecting the workforce and the gender disparity that exists in how employees respond to these challenges.

Out of the 1,000 UK adults surveyed, a staggering 76% revealed that they have experienced stress and been overwhelmed as a result of the increasing cost of living. The burden of financial strain has become so pressing that nearly one-third (31%) of respondents have taken the brave step of approaching their employers for a pay raise. Additionally, over a third (34%) of the employees surveyed have actively sought better-paying job opportunities elsewhere.

In an attempt to manage their finances, a significant 79% of respondents reported cutting back on household spending over the last six months. This percentage has risen from 67% since the previous year, indicating that the situation is only getting worse for many. Furthermore, to cope with the rising costs, some employees have had to make additional sacrifices, such as reducing pension contributions (14%) and personal insurance cover, including income protection and medical or dental insurance (17%).

The fear of missing out on wages has compelled over half (52%) of the survey respondents to continue working even when they were feeling unwell. This figure has increased from 46% in the previous year, indicating that the financial pressure is influencing employees' decisions to prioritise work over their well-being. For in-person roles, this issue becomes even more pronounced, with a staggering 64% of workplace-based staff admitting that they cannot afford to take time off work when they're sick, compared to 38% of hybrid and remote workers.

The survey also brought to light a troubling gender disparity in how employees are dealing with the cost-of-living crisis. Despite being equally affected by the rising expenses, women were found to be less likely than men to request a salary increase this year. Only 26% of women surveyed had asked for a pay raise, compared to 36% of men. Moreover, women were also less likely to ask for a cost-of-living bonus (7% vs. 14% of men), a promotion (17% vs. 22%), or additional employee benefits to supplement their income (11% vs. 16%).

Paradoxically, it is female employees who seem to bear the brunt of the financial strain. A higher percentage of women (55% vs. 47% of men) reported being unable to afford sick leave. Furthermore, they were more likely to feel overwhelmed by money worries (80% vs. 70% of men) and to believe that they are not being paid enough (38% vs. 32%).

Although there is only a marginal difference between men and women in how they perceive their salaries concerning the value they bring to their organisation, there is a stark contrast in how they act on these perceptions. A significant gender 'ask gap' was observed, wherein women who knew they were unhappy with their wages (32%) were less likely to request a pay raise than men who felt dissatisfied with their pay (38%). Even men who were unsure if they were being paid fairly were more likely to ask for a raise (32%) than women who knew they were underpaid (just 32%).

Encouragingly, previous research from Ciphr has shown that employees who muster the courage to negotiate for higher earnings are more likely to receive a pay raise. Therefore, fostering an open and supportive culture that encourages salary negotiations and removes barriers to discussing wages can be a step towards narrowing the gender pay gap.

The rising cost of living is taking a heavy toll on UK employees, leading to stress, financial sacrifices, and even health risks due to fears of losing out on wages. However, the survey by Ciphr also exposed an alarming gender disparity in how employees respond to these challenges. Women, despite being equally affected, are less likely to seek pay raises or better job opportunities, which may be exacerbating existing pay gaps in the workforce. Addressing this gender 'ask gap' and empowering employees, regardless of gender, to negotiate their salaries can be a crucial step in creating a fair and equitable work environment for all.

In recent years, the concept of a 4-day work week has gained significant attention as a potential solution to the modern-day challenges of stress, burnout and work-life balance. New research from the non-profit organisation 4 Day Week Global has shed light on the long-term impacts of implementing a reduced workweek. The findings not only underscore the benefits for both employees and businesses but also challenge conventional notions of work productivity.

The study conducted by 4 Day Week Global examined companies that had completed a six-month pilot programme of a 4-day work week. Surprisingly, the results showed that the positive effects extended far beyond the trial period. A year after the programme's launch, employees' average work week further decreased from a baseline of 38 hours to just 32.97 hours. This reduction of nearly a full hour from the six-month mark indicates that the initial gains in work-life balance and productivity were not temporary but rather a sustainable transformation.

Dr Dale Whelehan, CEO of 4 Day Week Global said:

“We’re delighted to see the positive experience people continue to have with the 4 day week beyond the conclusion of our pilot program. A concern we frequently hear is there’s no way the results from our six-month trials can be maintained, as the novelty eventually must wear off, but here we are a year later with benefits only continuing to grow. This is very promising for the sustainability of this model, and we look forward to tracking companies’ experiences well into the future.”

One key factor that sets this approach apart from the traditional 5-day work week is the absence of increased work intensity. Instead of cramming five days of work into four, employees operated more efficiently, leading to improved productivity. As they continued to adapt to the new schedule, their efficiency further increased, allowing for more leisure time while maintaining high productivity levels.

Equally significant were the employees' experiences and perceptions of the 4-day work week. Throughout the pilot programme and even beyond its conclusion, workers consistently rated their satisfaction with the new system at an impressive 9 out of 10. This high level of approval is a testament to the positive impact of the reduced workweek on employees' well-being and job satisfaction.

Furthermore, the study revealed noticeable improvements in workers' physical and mental health over the course of 12 months. As employees enjoyed more time for personal pursuits, hobbies, and relaxation, self-rated health measures increased. The 4-day work week allowed individuals to strike a better balance between their professional and personal lives, resulting in reduced stress levels and improved overall well-being.

While some concerns were raised about a slight increase in burnout levels in the six months following the trial, it should be noted that the overall improvements achieved during the programme were largely sustained. The slight rise in burnout was negligible compared to the broader positive effects of reduced working hours and enhanced work-life balance.

Moreover, the 4-day work week proved to be a valuable tool for attracting and retaining employees. As job seekers prioritise work-life balance and well-being, companies offering such progressive policies became highly desirable employers.

Jon Leland, Chief Strategy Officer at Kickstarter, a US-based non-profit who launched their 4 day week in 2021 said: 

“The most profound impact was on employee retention. We’ve seen very few people choose to depart the company since the implementation of our 4 day week. This has dramatically improved our ability to meet objectives and key results every quarter.”

On 20th July, a significant milestone was reached in the UK as the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill received Royal Assent, granting employees across England, Scotland and Wales new powers when requesting flexible work arrangements.

The Act, which will take effect immediately, aims to provide employees with greater flexibility over their working hours and patterns, fostering a better work-life balance and potentially boosting businesses' productivity and competitiveness.

Under the new legislation, employees can now make up to two flexible working requests within a 12-month period, doubling the previous allowance of just one. Furthermore, the requirement that the employee must explain in their request what effect the change would have on the employer and how that might be dealt with, has now been removed.

Under the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act, employers will have to respond to a request within two months, a notable reduction from the previous three-month timeline. This change ensures that employees receive timely consideration of their requests, allowing them to plan their lives accordingly.

Lastly, the act also introduces a new requirement for employers to consult with employees before denying a flexible working request. This move promotes transparency and communication between employers and their workforce, fostering a more inclusive and supportive work environment.

The Act outlines eight different types of flexible working, which include:

Job sharing: Two or more employees share the responsibilities and hours of a full-time role.

Working from home: Employees can perform their duties from their home instead of the company's premises.

Part-time working: Employees work fewer hours than full-time employees, typically on a set schedule.

Compressed hours: Employees work their agreed-upon hours over fewer days, with longer working days.

Flexible hours: Employees have the freedom to choose their start and finish times within agreed-upon limits.

Annualised hours: Employees work a set number of hours over the year, with varying hours each week.

Staggered hours: Employees have different start, finish, and break times to accommodate individual needs.

Phased retirement: Employees gradually reduce their working hours as they approach retirement.

The new legislation is particularly beneficial for workers as it enables them to hold jobs that better align with their personal circumstances, potentially leading to higher job satisfaction and retention rates.

Business and Trade Minister Kevin Hollinrake stated:

“A happier workforce means increased productivity, and that’s why we’re backing measures to give people across the UK even more flexibility over where and when they work.”

The Act's positive impact extends to businesses as well. Research has shown that companies embracing flexible working can attract and retain top talent, increase staff motivation and reduce turnover rates. The ability to accommodate flexible working arrangements can make a company more appealing to prospective employees and enhance its reputation as an employer of choice.

A recent study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) highlighted the significance of flexible working for employees. The research revealed that 6 percent of employees changed jobs due to a lack of flexible options, while 12 percent even left their profession altogether for the same reason. This accounts for approximately 2 and 4 million workers, respectively, indicating the growing demand for flexible work arrangements in the modern workforce.

To further support the implementation of the Act, the conciliation service Acas updated its statutory code of practice on handling flexible working requests. This update reflects the changes brought about by the new legislation and seeks employers' views on the updates in a consultation process that will conclude in early September.

In a landmark case, a Royal Mail employee has been awarded over £2 million in compensation, marking the company's largest-ever settlement.

Kam Jhuti, a media specialist, endured intimidation and harassment from her boss, Mike Widmer, after she raised concerns about a colleague's bonus. The court ruling, which described Royal Mail's conduct as "high-handed, malicious, insulting, and oppressive," emphasised the catastrophic impact of Jhuti's boss's treatment, leading to her suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression.

The dispute dates back to September 2013, when Ms. Jhuti joined the Royal Mail's MarketReach unit in London. Just a month into her job, while shadowing a colleague, she became suspicious that Ofcom's guidelines and the company's bonus policy, known as Tailor-Made Incentives (TMIs), were being breached. Ms. Jhuti suspected that her colleague was fraudulently securing bonuses by manipulating performance targets. In November, she reported her concerns via email to Mr. Widmer and his superior, highlighting the seriousness of the situation.

Instead of addressing the issue, Ms. Jhuti's boss responded by threatening her job security and questioning her understanding of the TMI policy during a four-hour meeting. Fearing the consequences, she apologised and retracted her allegations, but was subjected to a two-hour "dress down," where she was informed of her alleged underperformance. Mr. Widmer established intensive weekly meetings with Ms. Jhuti, continuously expressing disappointment with her progress.

By December, a TMI expert within the company confirmed that Ms. Jhuti's initial allegations were indeed correct, acknowledging that media specialists were inappropriately offering TMIs. The mounting pressure and mistreatment took a toll on Ms. Jhuti's well-being and by January 2014 she developed alopecia - which she attributed to stress. In February, she was placed on a performance improvement plan with the ultimatum that failure to comply would result in her failing her trial period.

Feeling targeted and mistreated, Ms. Jhuti reached out to human resources, expressing her concerns about her boss's conduct. She stated that it was clear she was being managed with the intent to remove her based on her initial complaint.

In March 2014, she was signed off from work due to work-related stress, anxiety and depression and did not return to her position.

In 2015, Ms. Jhuti took Royal Mail to an employment tribunal, and after several appeals, the Supreme Court ruled in her favour, recognising her unfair dismissal. In 2022 the employment tribunal finally recommended that Royal Mail pay £109,065 in compensation and £12,500 in aggravated damages. However, when solicitors for Royal Mail and Ms. Jhuti failed to agree on the correct methodology for calculating future pension losses and therefore agree on a final amount, Ms. Jhuti’s legal team requested another employment tribunal hearing.

The subsequent compensation awarded amounted to £2,365,614.13, including a basic award of £494,213.79 and a past losses including pension award of £1,079,165.07. H

However, Royal Mail plans to appeal the tribunal's findings, resulting in Ms. Jhuti initially only receiving only £250,000.

A new study conducted by Pregnant Then Screwed has shed light on the alarming state of discrimination faced by mothers in the workplace today. The research, which surveyed over 24,000 parents, in collaboration with Women In Data®, reveals distressing statistics that expose the challenges and biases that women encounter when they become mothers.

The most shocking revelation from the study is that approximately 1 in every 61 pregnant women reported that their boss suggested they terminate their pregnancy. Such suggestions are not only inappropriate but also constitute a severe form of discrimination that affects a significant number of expectant mothers in the workforce.

Joeli Brearley, CEO and founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, condemned this behaviour, stating that it is "sex discrimination and inhumane" and highlights the urgent need for workplaces to create an environment where pregnant women are treated with dignity and respect.

The discrimination experienced by women doesn't end with pregnancy; it persists through maternity leave and even on their return to work. More than half of all mothers (52%) have faced some form of discrimination during these stages. Shockingly, a distressing 64% of pregnant women shared that their boss or colleagues made hurtful comments about their physical appearance, showcasing the prevalence of body-shaming during pregnancy.

The repercussions of becoming a mother can be life-altering for some women. One in five mothers (19%) decided to leave their jobs due to negative experiences related to pregnancy or maternity leave. Additionally, 1 in 10 women (10%) experienced bullying or harassment during pregnancy or upon returning to work. Even more concerning, 7% of women lost their jobs due to various factors, including redundancy, sacking, or being compelled to leave because of rejected flexible working requests or purported health and safety issues. When extrapolated, this data indicates that up to 41,752 pregnant women or mothers may be unfairly terminated or made redundant every year.

The discrimination and prejudice faced by mothers are not confined to their employers alone; it often comes from their colleagues as well. A staggering 73% of women reported that a colleague had made hurtful comments about their pregnancy or maternity leave, while 74% said their colleagues insinuated that their performance had dipped due to these circumstances.

The study also exposed the dire lack of support for breastfeeding mothers in the workplace. Despite the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recommending a suitable and private environment for breastfeeding, 90% of breastfeeding mothers said they were forced to use a toilet or were provided with no appropriate space for expressing milk.

Moreover, the discrimination isn't solely limited to women who choose to have children; women who make decisions related to their reproductive health also face unfair treatment. Approximately one-third of women (31.58%) who informed their employer about having an abortion felt that they were subsequently discriminated against or treated unfairly. Worryingly, the majority of women (57.6%) chose not to disclose their abortion to their employer, possibly due to fears of judgment and further discrimination.

The study's findings highlight the urgent need for significant changes in workplace culture and policies to eradicate discrimination against mothers and women in general. Employers must prioritise creating safe and supportive environments for pregnant women and working parents. Implementing anonymous reporting processes for discrimination claims and offering mental health support for affected employees are vital steps towards addressing this issue.

Furthermore, companies need to provide suitable and private spaces for breastfeeding mothers, adhering to the guidance from the HSE. Flexible working options and phased returns to work should also be made available for women who have had an abortion, recognising the physical and emotional toll it can take.

Nearly one in three UK women expect to leave work before they plan to retire, with many citing health, wellbeing, or menopause concerns as reasons for their potential early departures - according to a report by the British Standards Institution (BSI).

The BSI survey polled women in the UK and found that 29% of them were likely to leave the workforce early for reasons other than personal choice. Among this group, 40% expected their early departure to be due to health and wellbeing issues, while an additional 20% specifically mentioned menopause as a barrier to staying in work longer.

The report also highlighted the desire of the majority (75%) of UK women for employers to take more action to retain older female workers. Furthermore, 71% of respondents believed that politicians needed to drive this change.

The attraction and retention of workers aged 50 and over is a significant element of the UK government's labour strategy, as evidenced by the introduction of 'returnerships' announced in the recent Budget.

Kate Field - Global Head of Health, Safety, and Wellbeing at BSI - acknowledged that there are various reasons why women decide not to stay in the workplace and when that is a genuine choice, it should be celebrated. However, the data from the survey shows that there are women who would like to remain in work and would appreciate greater support from their employers to do so.

Field emphasised the opportunity for organisations to partner with their employees to build diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace cultures that can bring enormous benefits to individuals, organisations, and society.

The BSI report also included findings from a survey of more than 5,000 women across the UK, USA, Australia, China and Japan, as part of their "Lifting the second glass ceiling" study. In the UK, 54% of women reported that they would find it difficult to raise health and menopause-related concerns with their employer.

Interestingly, three-quarters of respondents said they would feel comfortable discussing menopause issues with a female manager, while far fewer felt the same level of comfort with a male manager. In fact, only 38% of UK women would feel comfortable discussing health issues with a male manager.

The survey results also revealed that 67% of UK women believed that experienced female mentors would benefit the development of younger women. However, only 46% of respondents had the opportunity to learn from these mentors themselves.

To prevent women from leaving before retirement age, the BSI report recommended that employers consult with female workers to understand how they can enhance engagement and trust. Additionally, it suggested ensuring that support is available and accessible, making small adjustments to working arrangements to enable flexibility and fostering a workplace culture that ensures equity for people of all ages.

Anne Hayes - Director of sectors at BSI - highlighted the benefits of addressing the second glass ceiling, which she stated could “… offer many benefits, from enhancing productivity to ensuring organisations retain talented people and providing mentors who can draw on their experience to guide newer members of staff.”

The future of South Cambridgeshire District Council's trial of a four-day workweek hangs in the balance as the local government minister, Lee Rowley, has formally requested the council to end the experiment "immediately."

Rowley expressed concerns about the trial's value for money and potential breach of legal duties in a letter to council leader Bridget Smith. The council, led by the Liberal Democrats, is the first in the UK to trial the system.

Defending the scheme, Smith emphasised that the four-day week had helped address the council's reliance on expensive agency staff. She cited an assessment showing that performance was maintained and expressed surprise at the minister's request. Smith has requested a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter further.

South Cambridgeshire District Council began the pilot in January, involving the 450 desk-based staff at its Cambourne office and was scheduled to run until March 2024.

In his letter, Lee Rowley expressed his belief in councils' ability to innovate but argued that reducing capacity by up to 20% through the four-day week was unacceptable for a council aiming to demonstrate value for money. He noted that while the private sector may choose to experiment with the concept, local government should not follow suit. Rowley added that such an approach could potentially breach the council's legal duties under the Local Government Act.

Council leader Bridget Smith highlighted the positive impact of the trial, stating that during the first three months, the council filled four previously difficult-to-fill permanent positions, resulting in a £300,000 reduction in the annual agency bill. She also mentioned the positive effect on recruitment, with increased quality and quantity of applicants for vacant posts.

Joe Ryle, director of the 4-Day Week campaign group, criticised Lee Rowley's request, stating that it went against the evidence showing the success of the four-day week at the council. Ryle argued that since the private sector was already implementing the concept with no loss of pay, it was only fair for the public sector to adopt it as well.

He stated:

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has made a startling admission, revealing that approximately 210,000 retirees could be owed a staggering £1 billion due to a data error.

The mistake occurred because it was not mandatory to include National Insurance (NI) numbers on child benefit forms before May 2000, resulting in missed entitlements to state pension. Additionally, data protection laws require the deletion of Child Benefit information after five years, making it challenging for the government to identify those affected. The consequences of this oversight are significant and yet the government finds itself in the dark regarding which women are affected by this issue.

The impact on individuals who have been unemployed and claiming Child Benefit for extended periods of time is particularly severe. For instance, someone who has been claiming the benefit for 15 years may be entitled to an additional 15 years of NI contributions. These lost NI credits could translate to an extra £4,543 per year in state pension, totalling a staggering £68,145 over 15 years (without considering inflation). Disturbingly, it is estimated that approximately one in four underpaid individuals may have passed away before receiving the money they were entitled to.

The error was highlighted by Sir Steve Webb - Partner at LCP and former Minister for Pensions - and follows a new report published by the DWP in July, which revealed that this latest problem was the "second largest" source of underpayments in state pensions.

Sir Steve Webb expressed his shock at the scale of these errors. He stressed the importance of addressing the issue promptly, stating that "things need to be put right as a matter of urgency." Webb also highlighted the significant impact that missing out on protection for time spent at home with children can have on a mother's pension entitlement. Lump sum payments of arrears could potentially amount to thousands of pounds for those affected. He added, "far too many people have been underpaid for far too long," emphasising the need for swift corrective action.

To address this failure, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will be writing to affected individuals, with a particular focus on older women, to determine if any information is missing from their NI records that could affect their state pension entitlement. Specifically, some individuals may find that their home responsibilities protection (HRP) is missing from their NI records. HRP was a scheme designed to safeguard parents' and carers' entitlement to the state pension and it was replaced by NI credits from 6th April 2010.

Starting in the autumn of 2023, HMRC will contact those affected in phases, prioritising individuals based on their proximity to state pension age. Those who have already reached state pension age will be contacted first. This comprehensive effort aims to ensure that the errors in people's state pension records are rectified and that the money owed is paid out. However, given the scale of the issue, the process may take some time to complete.