The all-party Work and Pensions Committee is asking the Government to justify why each of the compensation options was not feasible

The boss of the Department for Work and Pensions has been told to explain exactly why all the potential WASPI compensation schemes were rejected.

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has been asked to respond by March 19, detailing why it was decided not to offer any form of financial redress to 3.5 million 1950s-born women who were affected by a change to their State Pension age.

WASPI – Women Against State Pension Inequality – has been campaigning for justice and compensation for all those impacted when their State Pension age increased from 60 to 65, and then to 66. It has raised £138,000 so far to launch a legal battle against the decision not to award any compensation.

READ MORE:

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PSHO) suggested compensation ranging from £1,000 to £2,950 was appropriate for each of the women, which would mean the Government spending between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion.

But in December 2024, the Government said that while it accepted the ombudsman’s finding of maladministration and apologised for the delay in writing to the women, the cost of recompensing them could not be justified.

Debbie Abrahams, chair of the all-party Work and Pensions Committee, is now urging the DWP to provide more information on why compensation was completely ruled out.

In a letter dated March 5, Ms Abrahams requested details of all the compensation options considered and why each one was not considered feasible.

She said: “In your statement to the House on 18 December 2024, you said you did not agree with the approach the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) had taken to a remedy for 1950s women (c168).

“This was because ‘assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s would have a significant cost and administrative burden.’ On the other hand, the Government did not believe that the alternative of ‘paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.'”

Karl Banister, the deputy ombudsman, told the committee in January that the organisation was not aware of any alternatives that had been considered for compensation.

However, DWP PermanentSecretary Sir Peter Schofield said officials had given Ministers “full advice on the full range of options.”

Mr Bannister had set out one possible approach to compensation in which women would apply and provide a statement that they met the eligibility criteria. This would be followed by a process for DWP to check whether the criteria were met before offering “standardised.” compensation. He said DWP was best placed to develop such proposals itself.

Ms Abrahams concluded in her letter to Liz Kendall: “I would be grateful if you could write with details of the compensation schemes you considered before making your statement in December and why particular schemes were not felt to be feasible or appropriate.”

Get breaking news on BirminghamLive WhatsApp. Join our dedicated community for the latest updates. You can find out more in our Money Saving Newsletter, which is sent out daily with all the updates you need to know on pensions, PIP, Universal Credit, benefits, finances, bills, and shopping discounts.