The Department for Work and Pensions has been compelled to provide a detailed explanation of the new evidence it considered before reaffirming its controversial decision to reject compensation payouts for millions of women affected by state pension age changes. This follows intense scrutiny over a high-profile government U-turn, where ministers initially agreed to review their stance but ultimately concluded with the same refusal.
Minister Clarifies Extensive Historical Document Review
Pensions Minister Torsten Bell has issued a written parliamentary statement this week, outlining the specific steps taken during the department's fresh assessment of the long-running WASPI case. He confirmed that officials conducted what he described as "new searches" of historical archives to ensure a comprehensive review of all pertinent documentation, including evidence previously overlooked by the DWP.
Mr Bell emphasised the thoroughness of the process, stating: "We have looked at information previously considered and conducted new searches as part of an extensive review of relevant historical documents." He further detailed that in addition to the pivotal 2007 Automatic Pension Forecast Evaluation, other evidence relating to letter effectiveness and State Pension age awareness was provided to the Secretary of State for consideration.
The 'Rediscovered' 2007 Report That Failed to Shift Position
At the centre of this renewed debate lies a 2007 DWP evaluation report, which had been effectively 'rediscovered' during the review process. This document revealed that officials had ceased sending automatic pension forecast letters at that time. Despite being the primary catalyst for the Government's subsequent 12-week review, this revelation ultimately failed to alter the official position on providing financial redress to the affected women.
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden argued that even if letters had been sent earlier, the "vast majority" of women born in the 1950s would not have read or remembered the information. He contended that those most in need of the notification were statistically the least likely to engage with unsolicited government correspondence.
Government Defends Decision Citing Cost and Practicality Concerns
The Government has maintained its stance that implementing a flat-rate compensation scheme would be fundamentally "unfair," as it would result in payments to millions of women who were already aware of the pension age changes. Officials have estimated that such a blanket compensation programme could burden taxpayers with costs reaching up to £10.3 billion, which they have categorised as an "unjustifiable use of public money."
Ministers have also rejected proposals for a more targeted compensation scheme, arguing that it would be "highly impractical" to verify the individual knowledge and circumstances of approximately 3.5 million women regarding events from two decades ago. They assert that there exists no reliable method to definitively prove who genuinely suffered "direct financial loss" due to the 28-month communication delay identified by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Campaigners and Politicians Condemn 'Disgraceful' Decision
WASPI chairwoman Angela Madden has vehemently criticised the Government's reaffirmed decision, labelling it a "disgraceful political choice" and accusing ministers of treating affected women with "utter contempt." She confirmed that the campaign is now actively seeking legal advice regarding a potential fresh judicial review to challenge the department's reasoning and conclusions.
Labour backbenchers have joined the chorus of condemnation, with several MPs describing the outcome as a "historic betrayal" that undermines the authority and recommendations of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Ombudsman had previously recommended compensation payments ranging between £1,000 and £2,950 per affected woman for the "maladministration" and "injustice" caused by the DWP's handling of pension age change communications.
The decision document referenced by Minister Bell, along with the DWP research reports considered during the review, are publicly available through government websites and the National Archive, providing transparency about the evidence base that informed this contentious conclusion.
