TO DATE NO COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR 1950s WOMEN HAS BEEN SET UP.
THESE ARE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS WE'RE ASKED MOST OFTEN.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was set up over 50 years ago to independently investigate complaints about UK government departments. The Ombudsman is accountable to Parliament through the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The current Ombudsman is Rebecca Hilsenrath.
In March 2024 the Ombudsman published the FINAL REPORT https://waspicampaign2018.co.uk/phso-final-report-21%2F3%2F24 into the Department for Work and Pensions’ mishandling of communications around the changes to the State Pension age affecting women born in the 1950s. The Ombudsman found that there had been maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions and recommended compensation at Level 4 on their Severity of Injustice scale (£1,000 to £2,950). However a number of MPs and campaign groups have argued that payment should be set at a higher level such as Level 6 (£10,000+).
No. Nothing has been agreed yet. Compensation has been recommended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, but it’s up to Parliament to come up with a plan.
A commitment to pay compensation was in the election manifestos of the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. It is also Green Party policy. However Labour, as the party in government, will have to start the ball rolling.
That is the Ombudsman’s assumption. However there may be different levels of payment for women born in different years who were affected to varying degrees.
Our hope is that payments will be made automatically to those affected. If there has to be some kind of application process involved, we will argue strongly that it should be kept as simple as possible.
Yes, because so many women were affected. But the Ombudsman says that limited resources should not be used as an excuse for failing to provide compensation.
We are campaigning for the rapid implementation of a scheme of fair and fast compensation, which should:
1. be simple to understand and administer, without requiring individuals to make complex claims;
2. not be subject to income tax;
3. not be means-tested;
4. not be taken into account in the calculation of means-tested benefits.