The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is facing pressure to exclude wealthier women from a potential multi-billion-pound compensation payout linked to changes in the state pension age.
Campaigners' defiant response to wealth-based calls
Critics, including commentator John Ralfe writing in the Telegraph, have questioned how the DWP can justify a significant lump sum payment to women who may be financially comfortable or even 'millionaires'. However, leaders of the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign have issued a robust rebuttal.
Angela Madden, chair of the WASPI campaign, stated that the fundamental issue is one of injustice, not personal wealth. She argued that while some may ask 'Why should millionaires get compensation?', the answer is straightforward: 'Because they have suffered injustice.'
'Wealth or poverty doesn't come into it,' Madden asserted. She clarified the legal grounds, noting the DWP has accepted maladministration, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found that a lack of proper information deprived women of the opportunity to make informed retirement decisions.
The legal and political background of the pension age change
The controversy stems from the acceleration of the state pension age timetable. Campaigners say 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not adequately informed that their pension age was rising from 60 to 65, and then to 66, to equalise it with men.
John Ralfe acknowledged that raising the pension age was necessary, as outlined in the 2007 Pensions Act passed by the Labour government. However, he criticised the 2011 Pensions Act for its 'peevish and muddled' acceleration of the timetable. He also pointed out that the Court of Appeal dismissed claims of discrimination in 2020.
While the government apologised last year for a 28-month delay in sending crucial information letters, it has so far rejected financial redress. A recent development involves a previously unseen document that was not shown to the then Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, which the government says must now be considered.
Uncertain future for any potential payout
The debate highlights a deep divide over the principles of compensation. On one side, there are calls for fiscal responsibility and targeting support. On the other, campaigners insist that rectifying a proven administrative failure should be universal for all affected.
Despite the ongoing discussions and the emergence of new evidence, there remains no guarantee that any payout will be made. The DWP must weigh the findings of maladministration against the colossal cost and the complex arguments surrounding fairness and need.
