US Edition
Women hit by the state pension age change should be denied compensation, a former cabinet secretary has said.
In its report last week, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) found that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had failed to adequately communicate changes to the women’s state pension age when they were announced in 1995.
It recommended a payout of up to £2,950 to the thousands of women affected, which campaigners have called “an absolute insult”.
However, David Gauke, who served as work and pensions secretary under David Cameron, said no payout was justified for “Waspi” women in part because they were responsible for staying up-to-date with the state pension age rise.
He said: “Yes, perhaps DWP should have done more. But there is also some responsibility on individuals to acquaint themselves with the relevant facts and plan their own finances accordingly.
“The increase was not a secret. We cannot sustainably have a situation where the cost of people failing to check their assumptions over a period of decades is socialised.”
He added that denying compensation would “protect the interests of taxpayers”.
From 1948 until 2010, the state pension age was 60 for women and 65 for men – but a law change in 1995 ruled the women’s pension age would increase to 65 between 2010 and 2020.
The campaign Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) says as many as 3.8 million women born in the 1950s were not made aware of the age change – and were forced to delay retirement without adequate warning.
The Government is yet to respond to the PHSO’s findings. An open letter urging a vote by MPs on compensation for women affected by state pension changes has been sent to House of Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt.
The letter, signed by 28,000 people according to the Waspi campaign, said “the Commons must urgently have the opportunity to debate and vote” on compensation proposals.
But Mr Gauke, writing on the Conservative Home website, said: “Legislating for a change that only began to take effect 15 years later strikes me as more than reasonable a notice period.”
He added that the Waspi campaign was “misnamed”, as it was “arguing for state pension inequality, not against”.
“There is no justification for women having a lower pension age than men.
“The state pension is a benefit, not an entitlement. Its generosity must be determined by what taxpayers can afford today.”
Any compensation would not only go to those who were unaware of the changes, he added.
“It will go to those who were aware of the changes, to those who did not change their plans because of their lack of awareness of the changes, and those who have faced no hardship as a consequence of the changes.”
Angela Madden, chair of the Waspi campaign, hit back at Mr Gauke’s comments. “Waspi women are not campaigning for the state pension age to be returned to 60, either for our generation or anyone else,” she said.
“Mr Gauke’s suggestion that we are saying every policy change should result in compensation seems to be a wilful distortion.
“The Government is itself now committed to a principle that any changes to the state pension age should entail 10 years’ notice to those affected.
“DWP did not notify 1950s-born women of the increase to their pension age, and independent, thorough analysis of that failure by the parliamentary ombudsman confirms its very negative impact.”
She said even the highest levels of compensation outlined in the ombudsman’s report “would represent a fraction of the losses most women suffered” and said the current state of public finances did “not alter the fundamental injustice Waspi women have faced, or make recompense any less urgent”.
She added: “With one Waspi woman dying every 13 minutes, we are beginning to get the impression that some in politics simply hope the grim reaper will deal with this problem for them. But there are still 3.5 million of us alive, and we will not rest until fair and fast compensation is paid.”
Baroness Altmann, a former pensions minister, agreed that any compensation should be targeted, but insisted that the DWP had let women down.
“The personal responsibility argument falls down because at the same time as the DWP survey [in 2004] showed that millions of women were unaware the state pension age was going up, [the department] sent out information about how much state pension they might get, not the fact that the age was rising. There was a leaflet enclosed, but this wasn’t clear.”
“If you want people to make careful plans, you need to inform people explicitly.”
“This does not mean every woman should be compensated. I think compensation should be more focused. But there were women who were genuinely let down – and they should get something. At the very least the DWP should apologise.”
A DWP spokesman said: “We will consider the Ombudsman’s report and respond in due course, having cooperated fully throughout this investigation.
“The government has always been committed to supporting all pensioners in a sustainable way that gives them a dignified retirement whilst also being fair to them and taxpayers.
“The state pension is the foundation of income in retirement and will remain so as we deliver a further 8.5pc rise in April, increasing the state pension for 12 million pensioners. This sees the full rate of the new state pension rise by £900.”