Waspi women call for rethink on compensation

The Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) group has urged the government to reconsider its decision not to compensate them.

In March last year, the parliamentary and health service ombudsman (PHSO) recommended compensating women born in the 1950s who weren’t properly informed when the state pension age increased to 65.  

Although the women weren’t said to have lost out directly because of this mistake, the public services watchdog said it had led to them losing out on opportunities.

As a result, it suggested that those affected get £1,000 to £2,950 in compensation.

In response, the government acknowledged that women born in the 1950s hadn’t been properly informed of the changes to the state pension age.

However, it said that 90% of affected women were aware of the change and that compensating up to 3.8m people could cost £10.5bn.

This, it stated, meant it couldn’t justify paying out compensation.

MPs hear from Waspi campaigners

Chairman of the Waspi group Angela Madden has today been speaking to MPs on the Work and Pensions Committee.

Although she accepted that the government is dealing with a tough financial situation right now, she said it shouldn’t completely rule out paying compensation.

“You know, perhaps this year, it might have difficult for them to make that decision,” she said.

“But it shouldn’t be un-made totally.”

Ms Madden insisted that many Waspi women did plan for retirement, but expected this to start at the age of 60, not 65.

This, she said, meant that those who had already given up work in their mid to late-50s found it “very, very difficult” to get back into work after hearing about the law changing.

“I believe discrimination, age discrimination, still exists in the workplace,” she commented.

Ms Madden said some Waspi women have had to use their savings to make ends meet, take on poorly paid jobs, and in some cases, house-share with strangers.

“Now, we did that when we were students, we certainly didn’t expect to do it at this stage of our lives,” she stated.

“So women have been impoverished by the way we’ve been treated.”

PHSO questions reason for refusing payouts 

Karl Banister, deputy ombudsman of PHSO, also spoke to the committee, and was asked if the government should have refused compensation on the grounds that 90% of affected women knew about the changes.

“I think it’s not ideal,” he said.

“There are various ways of looking at awareness.

“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.”

Mr Banister added that while he’s not surprised that the government has refused compensation, he believes the decision to accept maladministration and apologise is “a significant development”.