Government to review rejection of Waspi compensation for 1950s-born women
The government has agreed to reconsider its decision to reject compensation for millions of women affected by changes to the state pension age, marking a significant shift in the long running Waspi campaign.
The move follows the emergence of a previously undisclosed document linked to how the policy was decided, prompting ministers to revisit the ruling that denied payouts to women born in the 1950s who say they were unfairly impacted by poor communication over pension reforms.
What the government has said
Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told MPs that the decision would be retaken after the government acknowledged that former Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall was not shown a key 2007 survey at the time the ruling was made.
“Retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that government will necessarily decide that it should award financial redress,” Mr McFadden said.
He added that the document omitted from the initial decision process would now be reviewed, alongside checks to ensure no further evidence had been overlooked.
No timetable has yet been given for the fresh assessment.
“I understand that people are impatient for this matter to be resolved,” he told the Commons. “It is important that we give it full and appropriate consideration.”
Campaigners welcome ‘major step forward’
The announcement was cautiously welcomed by campaigners from Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi), who represent around 3.6 million women born in the 1950s.
These women argue that they were not properly informed about changes made under the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts, which raised their retirement age from 60 to 65 to bring it in line with men.
Angela Madden, chair of Waspi, said the government’s decision to review the case showed it now recognised that “it got it wrong.”
“We are pleased they are now trying to do it properly,” she said. “We hope they also try to do it quickly. The only correct thing to do is to compensate those affected immediately.”
Background to the dispute
For decades, women received the state pension at 60, five years earlier than men.
Under the 1995 Pensions Act, that age was due to gradually rise to 65 by 2020.
However, the 2011 Pensions Act, introduced by the coalition government, accelerated the timetable, bringing the change forward to 2018.
Campaigners argue that the policy was implemented too quickly and poorly communicated, leaving many women with little time to adjust their retirement plans.
Last year, the government apologized for a 28, month delay in sending notification letters, but maintained that financial compensation would be “unfair to taxpayers.”
Compensation calls reignited
In early 2023, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) recommended that affected women should receive compensation of £1,000 to £2,950 each.
However, the government rejected the proposal, saying there was no evidence of direct financial loss, and that a blanket payout estimated to cost up to £10.5 billion would not be “fair or proportionate.”
The Waspi campaign has called for a minimum payment of £10,000 per person and launched a judicial review challenging the government’s refusal to pay.
Why: Rejection of Waspi compensation
The High Court case had been scheduled for December, but the government has now informed the court that it will reconsider the original decision in light of the new evidence.
A long running battle
The state pension age currently stands at 66 for both men and women, rising in line with life expectancy.
The debate over fairness, however, continues to divide Parliament and the public.
Campaigners argue that many women have been financially disadvantaged, with some forced to continue working into their late 60s or draw down savings early to bridge the gap.
The government insists that while it recognizes the distress caused by communication failures, any financial redress must be “fair, evidence based, and sustainable.”
For now, Waspi campaigners say the renewed review marks “the first meaningful progress in years” but remain adamant that justice delayed is justice denied.
