The Keir Starmer-led Labour government’s decision to refuse compensation to millions of “Waspi women” has caused much controversy in the United Kingdom. According to reports, the women missed out due to government inadequacies in communicating changes to the state pension age.
How has the increase in the state pension age disadvantaged women born in the 1950s? And what will happen next? This article will walk you through it.
What is Waspi?
The acronym stands for Women Against State Pension Inequality, a campaign organisation that advocated for pay equity in 2015. It should come as no surprise that a wasp appears in its logo.
Waspi, which means “a woman born between 1950 and 1960 who was disadvantaged by the 1995 Pensions Act, which increased her pensionable age from 60 to 65,” was just added to the Collins English Dictionary.
There is substantial disagreement over the number of women who can be properly classified as Waspi women. Including all women born in the 1950s, the potential exceeds 3.5 million.
Waspi and others have long argued that the decision to raise the state pension age for women to match that of men was made and presented in a way that financially penalised many older women and left them struggling to pay for living expenses.
Many stated that they had always planned their finances based on the expectation that they would receive their pension at age 60. Some claimed that it wasn’t until they quit their jobs that they realised their state pension age had been increased by a few years.
They contend that insufficient notice prevented them from planning to close the difference in funds.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) dedicated years to the investigation. In 2021, the Department for Work and Pensions was found to have handled the reforms in a maladministration-prone manner. In March 2024, the Department for Work and Pensions’ final report recommended compensating those affected.
What caused the change to occur?
The state pension age for women was 60 for many years. The 1995 Pensions Act proposed a gradual increase to 65 between 2010 and 2020. However, the government accelerated the process in 2011.
Consequently, starting in November 2018, the state pension age for women was raised to 65, and by October 2020, it was raised to 66. Many women claimed that when they learnt that their state pension age had increased by four, five, or even six years, their plans were completely upended.
Importantly, the government did not write to surge-affected women for nearly 14 years after the law’s passage in 1995. The DWP didn’t start writing to people about the 1995 and 2011 adjustments until 2009–2013.
Finally, the Keir Starmer administration has made it clear what it will—or won’t—do to make things right. The Labour government has sparked significant controversy by dismissing any financial compensation plan for the affected women, despite maintaining secrecy during the general election campaign.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, stated that enhancing public services should take precedence over allocating billions of dollars to compensate Waspi women.
Numerous MPs and activists have responded angrily. Rebecca Hilsenrath, the health ombudsman, criticised the decision to refuse compensation, while the Liberal Democrats called it a “day of shame” for Labour.
The government may have found it easier to reject any payouts because that is unclear. The PHSO’s final report suggests that thousands of women may have suffered and deserve compensation.
“Not all women born in the 1950s will have suffered an injustice,” it stated, adding that it would cost between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion to pay out to all 3.5 million or more women born in the 1950s at the proposed sum of between £1,000 and £2,950 each.
Protesters had demanded compensation of at least £10,000.
To what extent have people lost money?
According to one case study, a woman lost £39,000. Another claimed that because her state pension age was six years later than she had anticipated, she lost almost £45,000.
Other women cited even higher figures. According to one, she lost out on about £442,000 in extra income that she would have received if she had continued working rather than quitting. The ombudsman stated, however, that it did not believe that these amounts represented “direct financial loss.”
Some 90% of women in the relevant age range were aware of the anticipated changes to the state pension age, according to survey data from 2006.
It also stated that it could not accept that sending postal notifications sooner would have had a significant impact since there was “evidence of the ineffectiveness of unsolicited letters that the ombudsman did not properly account for.”
According to ministers, it would be “impossible to deliver a tailored compensation scheme taking individual circumstances into account that is fair, value for money, and feasible,” and a general compensation plan costing up to £10.5 billion could not be justified given the current situation of the public finances.
The controversy led to attacks on Keir Starmer during the Prime Minister’s questions. Now, activists believe the controversy will get traction and compel the government to reconsider.
With former Pensions Minister Steve Webb stating that “MPs should not take this decision lying down,” the Liberal Democrats have assured that they will keep putting pressure on the government.
Downing Street stated that there were “no plans” for a parliamentary vote on whether or not to provide compensation to those impacted. The Waspi women’s plight underscores a profound sense of injustice tied to mismanagement and insufficient communication from the UK government regarding state pension reforms.
At its core, this issue is not merely about financial loss but also about the broader implications of trust, fairness, and accountability in policymaking. For many of these women, their retirement plans and financial security were upended without adequate notice, leaving them scrambling to fill the financial gaps they were unprepared for.
Despite the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) finding maladministration, the lack of compensation exacerbates the situation. The parliamentary and health service ombudsman’s report, which called for reparations, initially provided hope to those affected.
However, the government’s refusal to heed these recommendations has dashed expectations and inflamed tensions, particularly given the scale of the financial implications for many women born in the 1950s. Individuals are reportedly losing vast sums of money, and the government’s prioritisation of public service funding presents a picture of competing priorities, leaving millions feeling overlooked.
The broader implications of this controversy extend beyond the immediate financial ramifications. It raises critical questions about how governments manage transitions in policy that impact large sections of the population, particularly those already vulnerable. The decision to phase in the pension age increase without direct and timely communication for over a decade exemplifies how poor planning can lead to widespread disenfranchisement. While ministers argue that most women were aware of the changes, evidence suggests otherwise for many, and the government’s reliance on this defence has done little to assuage public discontent.
Media coverage and vocal advocacy by groups like Waspi have fuelled public backlash, placing the government under significant scrutiny. Activists, MPs, and even former ministers have called for justice, emphasising the need for a fair resolution to an issue that has far-reaching implications. For those who devoted years of service to the workforce, only to face financial instability during later years, the current outcome feels like a betrayal of their contributions to society.
Looking ahead, the question remains whether this controversy will compel the government to reconsider its stance. While current indications suggest no plans for further parliamentary debate or compensation, sustained public pressure could force the issue back onto the political agenda. Advocacy groups and opposition parties are likely to keep the issue alive, seeking to rally public support and challenge the government’s position.
Ultimately, the Waspi women’s struggle symbolises a broader demand for transparency, fairness, and respect in the relationship between citizens and their government. The people in power need to prioritise effective communication and fairness in implementing reforms that affect millions.