More than 50 Labour MPs have called on the Government to reverse its decision not to provide compensation to so-called WASPI women in the latest indication of backbench discontent. They were among 92 parliamentarians who put their names to a letter organised by Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey, describing it as the « wrong decision » not to grant compensation to women over pension age changes.
The letter to Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden states: « We collectively represent millions of women born in the 1950s and express our grave disappointment that the Government has once again chosen to reject compensation for the 1950s women affected by state pension age changes. This was the wrong decision, but you have the opportunity to put this right. »
Those who signed included Labour MPs who have voiced their concerns publicly in recent days, including Rachael Maskell, Paula Barker, Neil Duncan Jordan and John McDonnell. It also features several Labour MPs from the 2024 intake and senior MPs, including Sarah Champion, Cat Smith and Ruth Jones.
MPs from other parties also signed, including the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats. It follows the Government’s decision for a second time not to provide compensation to 1950s-born women affected by how changes to the state pension age were communicated.
Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) has been campaigning for compensation for some time. Labour’s previous stance of not offering redress was reconsidered following the unearthing of a 2007 Department for Work and Pensions assessment, which at the time resulted in officials ceasing to send automatic pension forecast letters.
Mr McFadden reaffirmed last week in the Commons that no compensation would be forthcoming, stating that a targeted compensation programme would « not be practical », with a broader flat-rate scheme potentially costing up to £10.3 billion. He argued that most women in the affected age group were already aware of the increasing state pension age and that sending an earlier letter to those impacted would likely have made little difference.
He reasoned that this was because most of them would not have read and remembered the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter and that those less informed about pensions were the least likely to have read such a letter. A report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman had suggested compensation ranging between £1,000 and £2,950 could be suitable for each of those affected by how state pension changes had been communicated.
The group of MPs and peers said: « We believe that the PHSO’s advice to Government was clear and ignoring it is not only unprecedented, it also undermines the authority of the Ombudsman and sends a damaging message to the public about how the state responds when it gets things wrong. Women pensioners have lost their homes and their savings, and their health has been impacted over this matter.
« The Government have rightly apologised for the wrong; now they need to put that wrong right. We urge you to urgently engage with the impacted women and reconsider this decision again. »
