WASPI campaigners are continuing to call for compensation payouts (Image: Getty)
WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaigners are continuing in their push for compensation for 1950s-born women.
Campaign chair Angela Madden said her advocacy group was “heartbroken” when the Labour Government announced in December 2024 that there would be no payout scheme.
Their dispute relates to how 1950s-born women were informed of the change to their age, with millions affected when it increased from 60 to 65 and then to 66, a change that many claim they did not know about.
An investigation from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) previously found there was ‘maladministration’ in how the communicated the change and that it should have sent out letters to warn the women sooner. The Ombudsman recommended payouts ranging from £1,000 and £2,950 to make restitution.
But the Government announced last month there would be no compensation, arguing it was a poor use of taxpayer money and that most of the women knew of the change.
Despite the setback, many individual MPs still back the campaign, with many speaking out at a debate in Parliament last week, pledging they would continue to raise the issue in Westminster.
Ms Madden said MPs have also requested a backbench business debate on the issue. As this is not a debate in Government time, even if a debate voted in favour of granting compensation, it would not change anything formally.
But the campaign leader said it would help further their cause, saying: “It would be in the House of Commons. All MPs would be able to have a say.
“It’s generally three hours long, so it gives more people a chance to say what they want. All those things should put pressure on the Government.”
She also pointed to three parliamentary committees who could raise the issue, namely the Work and Pensions Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) and the Women and Equalities Committee.
Don’t miss…
She explained: “The PACAC committee owns the standard of administration, and this is all about a Government department not upholding the standard of administration. So the PACAC committee has something to say about that.”
Ms Madden also sees a ray of hope that the Ombudsman could provide further support. She said: “The PHSO could choose to come back to the Government on this and make their views more formal on the committees.
“I don’t know if they could do another small inquiry into why the chose not to [carry out its recommendations] in this case, but they should be able to do something.”
Karl Bannister, deputy ombudsman at the PHSO, told the Work and Pensions Committee at a session this week he was pleased the Government had accepted mistakes were made and had issued an apology.
But he also had some criticisms of the Government’s explanation of why there would be no compensation, saying: “It’s not helpful in our view that the Government has undermined that in some of the ways it’s responded.
“In saying, we don’t accept that some of the women didn’t know, picking out some aspects of the surveys but not all the surveys of the women’s knowledge. It would have been better if there had just been a straight ‘we accept there was maladministration’.”