The decision not to compensate the WASPI women

The government has decided not to compensate women who have lost several years’ pensions because of the shift to equal pension ages.  The main complaint that has been addressed (notably, the decision of the Ombudsman on this issue) is focused on a specific question: were the women properly informed about the change in their entitlement?  The Ombudsman’s judgment was that some notices came late, or not at all, and so that there was maladministration.

That, however, is only part of the issue, and not (in my view) the greatest matter of concern.  The problem lies not so much in the 1995 Act, which set about equalising pension ages, as the 2011 Act, which both speeded up the timetable and further increased the pension age.  (The notices of this went out in 2012 and 2013). The effect of that Act was that women who were at that point aged (roughly) 56-58 years was that, even if they were perfectly informed, they were given less than five years, and possibly as little as two, to make alternative financial arrangements.

Parliament decided to save money at these women’s expense. There are two key objections to this.  One is that the government took away a property right – the pension that they had paid for.   The other is the breach of a fairly long-standing principle in public service, that of ‘promissory estoppel’: that people make plans and commitments guided by the advice of government and officials, and that they have the right to expect that official promises will be held to.   The bad faith, not the lack of information, is the main reason the WASPI women have been so indignant.

 

Leave a Reply