google.com, pub-8701563775261122, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
UK

Blow for Waspi women as government refuses to grant compensation over state pension age changes

Following a review of the decision, the Secretary for Work and Pensions announced that approximately 3.8 million Waspi women will not receive compensation.

The government reassessed the case after a new document emerged but reiterated its previous conclusion that no compensation should be awarded.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden apologized, saying individual letters about changes to state pensions had not previously been sent to women born in the 1950s, but said they would not receive compensation due to communication problems.

Waspi campaigners (PA) disappointed

Waspi campaigners (PA) disappointed (PA Archive)

But he also warned that a flat-rate compensation scheme would cost more than £10bn.

Mr McFadden told the House of Commons: “There are legitimate and well-held views about whether it is wise to raise the state retirement age, and in particular whether the decision taken by the coalition government in 2011 to accelerate equalization and raise the age to 66 was the right thing to do.”

But the minister said the compensation issue was based not on past policy decisions but on “how changes to the state pension age were communicated”.

He also told the House of Commons: “We accept that individual letters regarding state pension age changes may have been sent earlier.

“I would like to echo the apology (former Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall) offered on behalf of the Government for this.

“And I’m sorry these letters weren’t sent sooner.

“We also agree with the (Parliamentary and Health Service) ombudsman that the women did not suffer any direct financial loss as a result of the delay.”

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden makes the announcement about Waspi women (Gareth Fuller/PA)

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden makes the announcement about Waspi women (Gareth Fuller/PA) (PA Wire)

Before being elected, Labor had promised to pay compensation to women whose pension plans were disrupted when the state pension eligibility age was postponed by six years to 66.

While the original law in 1995 said women should get 10 to 15 years, they were given only 18 months to change their plans.

Last year, then Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall rejected calls for awards of between £1,000 and £2,950 to those affected, sparking a fierce backlash among Labor MPs.

At the time, the minister was accused of presiding over a “day of shame” for the Labor government.

In November, Work and Pensions Minister Pat McFadden said his department would review the previously announced policy of denying compensation to women born in the 1950s.

The Conservatives accused the government of a series of “handbrake turns” and claimed the government could compensate women by canceling the controversial Chagos Islands agreement or reforming the increased welfare bill.

Shadow Treasurer Mark Garnier recalled Labor MPs’ previous words of support for the Waspi women.

“Before entering government, Labor MPs seemed to think an injustice had been done,” he said.

Mr Garnier added: “So it is no wonder that the Waspi women, to whom so much was promised, were so angry. The people who stood with them turned against them. If the Government really believed that these women were facing a great injustice, it would find a way to compensate them.”

He told MPs: “Isn’t it a fact now that this Government, when it should be a serious Government party, looks like a bunch of happy-go-lucky motorists pulling on the handbrake in the Tesco car park?

“Those of them who back down are marched up the hill to be told to march down again. They are even stripped of the whip for having a conscience, but then ministers are said to be proud to support policies that are just impeachable offenses.”

“Does he really think this constant back-and-forth is fair to the Waspi women?”

Labour’s Rebecca Long Bailey, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Inequalities for Women, said the decision was “frankly wrong”.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button