Waspi women feel angry and betrayed by decision not to offer redress, MPs hear

Waspi women feel angry and let down after the Government decision not to compensate women affected by the way changes to the state pension age were communicated, MPs have heard.

The Work and Pensions Committee took evidence from Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaigners as part of its pensioner poverty hearing.

A previous report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PSHO), which looked into how changes to the state pension age were communicated, suggested compensation ranging between £1,000 and £2,950 could be appropriate for each of those affected.

But in December 2024, the Government said that, while it accepted the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration and apologised for there being a delay in writing to 1950s-born women, a blanket compensation scheme, which could cost taxpayers up to £10.5 billion, cannot be justified.

Debbie de Spon, communications director of the Waspi campaign told the committee: “Waspi women are upset and angry and they feel let down and they feel betrayed and they don’t understand how it’s possible that findings of maladministration can have been shown but it doesn’t lead to redress for them.”

Angela Madden, chairwoman of Waspi said: “We did plan for our retirement, mostly that’s what we hear from our members, we planned for our retirement, but we expected that retirement to start at 60.

“And if you’ve already given up work in your late 50s, maybe in your mid-50s, depending on what your circumstances are, four, five, six years later, whenever you heard about the law changing, it’s very, very difficult to get back in.

“Because, I believe, certainly for us, there was discrimination in the workplace and I believe discrimination, age discrimination, still exists in the workplace.”

She added that people had to take on poorly paid work and use savings to get by.

Ms Madden said: “We’ve heard of some women house-sharing with strangers, now, we did that when we were students, we certainly didn’t expect to do it at this stage of our lives. So women have been impoverished by the way we’ve been treated.

“And we are now shocked again because the ombudsman suggested that we were being compensated for stress, lack of notice, you know, the anxiety, the shock, all the adjustments we had to make, some that we couldn’t make.

“And the compensation recommended by them is a very small sum because of that, you know, £3,000 maximum for anyone suffering from those injustices.”

Asked if she felt the Government should have left the door open when finances might be permitting, Ms Madden said: “Absolutely, yes, absolutely.

“You know, perhaps this year it might have been difficult for them to make that decision. But it shouldn’t be un-made totally.”

Giving evidence to the committee at a later session on Wednesday, Karl Banister, deputy ombudsman of PHSO said: “We are pleased that the Government has said yes, there was maladministration.

“We’re pleased that the Government has apologised, those are the positives, that’s the glass half full.

“On the other side, it’s not helpful in our view that the Government has then sort of undermined some of that, in some of the ways it’s responded, in saying we don’t accept that women didn’t know, picking out some aspects of the surveys but not all the surveys and so on, on women’s knowledge.

“It would have been better if it had just been a straight we accept maladministration, but that’s where we are and we are definitely going to work with the Government.”

The Government has previously highlighted research indicating that by 2006, 90% of 1950s-born women knew about state pension age changes.

Asked whether it was reasonable to use a 90% figure as a key justification for not paying compensation, Mr Banister said: “I think it’s not ideal.

“Because I think it’s clear from our report that there are various ways of looking at awareness.”

He later added: “We’re not telling Government what its policy position should be on telling people things, we’re holding Government to its policy position on telling people things… we hold Government to the standards it sets itself, generally.”

He continued: “Our finding isn’t saying that people don’t have their own responsibilities to inform themselves, what we’re saying (is) the Government ought to behave in a way that is administratively correct.”

Asked if he was surprised there was no form of financial resolution from Government, he said: “I suppose not, really, because it was a significant development, a significant move forward to accept maladministration, full stop, and to apologise.”