A watchdog has criticised the Government’s decision not to compensate women affected by the way changes to the state pension age were communicated.
The Government accepted a finding of maladministration by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and apologised for there being a 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women, but ruled out paying up to £10.5billion in compensation.
Rebecca Hilsenrath, the ombudsman, told Times Radio: « It’s great that the Government are saying that our intervention will lead to service improvements and it’s fair to say also that people who come to us, overwhelmingly, are motivated by wanting things to improve for other people.
« But what we don’t expect is for an acknowledgement to be made by a public body that it’s got it wrong but then refuse to make it right for those affected. »
Ms Hilsenrath’s criticism comes after Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, told Parliament on Tuesday that the Government does not believe paying a flat rate of compensation to women at a cost of up to £10.5billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.
The Government said it accepted the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration and apologised for there being a 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women.
But it said evidence showed only one in four people remember receiving and reading letters that they were not expecting and that the great majority of 1950s-born women did know that the state pension age was changing.
Pensions campaigners and experts have criticised the Government’s rejection of the PHSO recommendation compensation be made.
Sir Steve Webb, a former Liberal Democrat pensions minister who is now a partner at pension consultants LCP (Lane Clark & Peacock), said: « The Government’s handling of this issue sets an extremely worrying precedent.
« If it is acceptable for a department to completely reject the findings of a report by the independent Parliamentary Ombudsman, this strikes a blow at the heart of the whole process. »
He warned there is a risk governments will now feel emboldened to « pick and choose » when faced with a critical Ombudsman report, effectively setting themselves up as judge and jury.
Sir Steve said: « Even if the Government felt it could not afford to implement the recommendations in full, there were many options which would have offered some redress to those most affected.
« Outright rejection of the Ombudsman’s report raises much wider issues than compensation over pension age changes, and MPs should not take this decision lying down. »
Angela Madden, who chairs the campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), said on Tuesday that the Government made an unprecedented political choice to ignore the clear recommendations of an independent watchdog which ordered ministers urgently to compensate Waspi women nine months ago.
She added: « This is a bizarre and totally unjustified move which will leave everyone asking what the point of an ombudsman is if ministers can simply ignore their decisions. It feels like a decision that would make the likes of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump blush. »
Ms Madden urged Parliament to now seek an alternative mechanism to force the issue on to the order paper « so justice can be done ».
Ms Kendall told MPs in the Commons the decision was right and fair amid attacks from her own party. Labour MP Brian Leishman said he was « appalled » at the decision.
But the Work and Pensions Secretary insisted most women knew the state pension age was increasing and letters mailed out to inform them of the changes weren’t as significant as the Ombudsman said.
She added: « The alternative put forward in the report is for a flat rate compensation scheme, at level four of the Ombudsman’s scale of injustice, this would provide £1,000 to £2,950 per person at a total cost of between £3.5 billion and 10.5 billion.
« Given the vast majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, the Government does not believe paying a flat rate to all women at a cost of up to £10.5billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money. »
Source link
