MPs keep up pressure over Waspi with private member’s bill
Image: Stevebidmead/Pixabay
Pardon the Interruption
This article is just an example of the content available to mallowstreet members.
On average over 150 pieces of new content are published from across the industry per month on mallowstreet. Members get access to the latest developments, industry views and a range of in-depth research.
All the content on mallowstreet is accredited for CPD by the PMI and is available to trustees for free.
A private member’s bill has been introduced, unopposed, that aims to compensate 1950s-born women for the government’s maladministration in communicating a rise in their state pension age. The bill will be debated on 7 March.
In December, the government rejected a recommendation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to pay affected women between £1,000 and £2,950 each.
On Tuesday, a bill was introduced by the SNP’s Stephen Flynn, demanding compensation for women. It would require the secretary of state to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for those born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960 who have been affected by increases in women’s state pension age.
Flynn lambasted the government for undermining trust in politics, saying he was bringing the bill “out of complete and utter frustration” because many current ministers had falsely promised campaigners at Women Against State Pension Inequality their support in the run-up to the general election. He cited a number of statements in support of Waspi or of compensation that were made by the prime minister, deputy prime minister, chancellor and other senior members of the cabinet before the election.
"We saw a government turn their back on those women, but not before, of course, they had held placards; not before, of course, they had given warm words when they had felt that it was politically expedient to do so,” the MP for Aberdeen South said.
"For those of us who have stood alongside the Waspi women for many years... it is important that that trust is repaid, and my bill seeks to do that,” he told parliament.
Has the relationship between government and PHSO reached a new low?
Flynn suggested there was a democratic deficit if the government can dismiss or ignore the recommendations of its own ombudsman.
"If we do not have trust and confidence in the estate in which we operate, and if we do not support the outcomes of our ombudsman, I must simply ask: where are the public to go? Where are they to place their trust?”
He added that PHSO had put its final report before parliament, rather than the DWP, because it did not trust the department to take any action or deal with the report.
Deputy PHSO Karl Bannister recently told MPs that the secretary of state’s argument for refusing compensation – that affected women knew at the time and that letters would have made no difference – contradicts the DWP’s own assessment of the period.
Bannister said: “DWP itself, at the time, knew that women did not know... It accepts women didn’t know, it accepted it at the time, and it had identified that and thought it should do something about it.”
He also argued that a compensation scheme did not need to cost the maximum projected amount of £10.5bn.
Governments have on several occasions agreed to large amounts of compensation in other long-running cases. Core Labour voter groups have also received payouts recently, including a £1.5bn pension investment reserve already transferred from government to retired mineworkers and £2.3bn transfer to the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme being discussed.
