Ministers to rethink WASPI payouts after 2007 survey

Ministers will retake their decision on whether to pay compensation to women affected by state pension age changes. The step follows the discovery of a 2007 survey that was not shown to Liz Kendall when she was Work and Pensions Secretary. Current Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told MPs-reported by BBC News-that reviewing the decision does not automatically mean money will be paid.

For many readers, this is about communication and fairness. Campaigners say about 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not properly warned that their state pension age was rising to match men’s. The government apologised for a 28‑month delay in sending letters but, until now, rejected any form of financial redress.

Let’s put the policy on a simple timeline. The 1995 Pensions Act set out equalisation: women’s state pension age would rise from 60 to 65, phased in from 2010 to 2020. The coalition then accelerated the plan with the 2011 Pensions Act, bringing the new age of 65 forward to 2018. Today, the state pension age is 66 for both men and women, reflecting longer life expectancy.

When we say ‘equalisation’, we mean the law treating men and women the same for the age at which the state pension starts. The live question is not whether equalisation should have happened, but whether the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communicated the changes clearly and in time to those directly affected.

At the start of last year, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) recommended compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 per person for maladministration in communication. Quick explainer: an ombudsman investigates complaints about public bodies and can recommend remedies, but cannot force ministers to act.

Ministers rejected that recommendation, arguing there was no evidence of direct financial loss caused by the government’s actions. They also said a flat‑rate scheme for all affected women-costed at up to £10.5bn-would not be fair or proportionate for taxpayers. Campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) has argued for payments of at least £10,000 per person.

Waspi launched a judicial review to challenge the lawfulness of the decision not to compensate. In plain English, a judicial review checks whether a public body followed the law and fair process; it does not replace the decision with the court’s own view. Supporters crowdfunded the case, and a court capped their exposure to the government’s legal costs if they lose.

The hearing was due to reach the High Court in December, but the government has now told the court it will retake the decision in light of the 2007 survey and will check whether any other material was overlooked. No timetable has been given. McFadden said he understands people’s impatience but wants the matter to receive full and proper consideration.

If you were born in the 1950s and think you may be affected, keep your DWP letters and any personal records of advice you received about your state pension age. Watch for official updates from the Department for Work and Pensions and from the PHSO. A review could confirm the previous position or lead to financial redress, but nothing is guaranteed.

For students and educators, this is a live case study in how policy, process and accountability interact. Parliament sets the law, departments deliver it, the ombudsman scrutinises complaints, and the courts test whether decisions were lawful. Understanding each step helps you separate campaign headlines from what government can actually do next.