Steve Webb has had to watch the WASPI saga play out , first as a minister and now as a commentator.
For many women, the decision not to go back on the change to their pension age has left them cold to a state pension that over the last fifteen years (since Steve Webb became Minister in 2010) has grown in value not just to men but to women too.
We cannot have afforded the valuable triple lock over the period if we had done a u-turn in the rise of women’s pension ages.
Here is what the Government has to say . As Steve Webb, this sound pretty final
Maladministration and injustice
The PHSO found that between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of the changes to State Pension age reflected the expected standards. However, maladministration was found in 2 respects:
First, DWP failed to take adequate account of the need for targeted and individually tailored information based on research when making decisions about next steps in August 2005.
Second, DWP did not act promptly enough on a November 2006 proposal to write directly to affected women about changes to State Pension age, which was not progressed until December 2007.
When combined these led to a 28-month delay in beginning the direct mailing exercise to women affected by the 1995 Pensions Act.
The PHSO said that this delay:
resulted in the complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control.
The PHSO did not find that the complainants had suffered direct financial loss. Later in their report the PHSO also describe injustice as a loss of chance to “receive, read and act on a letter earlier.”
Government response
We accept that decision-making between August 2005 and December 2007 resulted in a 28-month delay in beginning to send individual letters to 1950s-born women about the changes in State Pension age. We are sorry that we did not send individual letters earlier in this case.
However, we do not accept the PHSO’s approach to injustice. The body of evidence indicates that letters would not definitely have been read and recalled – that for a majority of 1950s-born women, an earlier letter would not have influenced the choices they could or would have made. How effective an earlier letter would have been is clearly material in this case and the PHSO does not properly consider this.
We agree with the PHSO’s finding that there was no direct financial loss.
Financial remedy
The PHSO said they would have recommended compensation at level 4 (£1,000 to £2,950) for all 6 sample complainants; and recommended that DWP should provide a remedy for other 1950s-born women who have suffered injustice because of the maladministration found.
Government response
We have decided against introducing financial compensation for women affected by the delay in sending out State Pension age letters.
In drawing our conclusion, we considered a number of complex issues, including the PHSO reports, Parliament’s views, fairness and economic factors.
The PHSO’s assumption that unsolicited letters, if received earlier, would definitely have been read and recalled is flawed as the evidence suggests otherwise. However, this flaw is not the only basis for the Government’s decision.
The evidence is also clear that the majority of 1950s-born women knew that State Pension age was changing. While not everyone knew their exact State Pension age, it is reasonable to expect that those aware of the increase would seek to understand their own position.
It would not be the correct use of taxpayers’ money to provide compensation to women who were aware that State Pension age was changing or for whom an earlier letter would have made no difference.
Creating a scheme to assess individual impact, or based on self-certification would be a highly impractical and time-consuming process, particularly given the difficulties of establishing what individuals knew around 20 years ago. Both rules-based and flat-rate systems would also face significant challenges with the potential for paying huge amounts of money to women who did not experience injustice or were aware that State Pension age was increasing.
Introducing a financial compensation scheme is neither fair nor feasible and would not represent good value for taxpayers, and, as a consequence, one will not be set up.
As there will be no scheme to pay compensation to 1950s-born women, we do not deem it would be appropriate to provide the sample complainants in the PHSO’s investigation with a financial remedy.
