UK Government Rejects Waspi Women Compensation Again

On January 29, 2026, the UK government once again rejected calls to compensate millions of women affected by changes to the state pension age, reigniting a fierce debate that has simmered for years. The decision, delivered by Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden in the House of Commons, came after a fresh review into how the changes were communicated—an issue that has drawn the ire of campaigners and opposition politicians alike.

The Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) group, representing women born in the 1950s, has long argued that they were not adequately informed of the government’s plans to raise the state pension age for women, bringing it in line with men. The changes, first announced in the 1995 Pensions Act and accelerated by the coalition government in 2011, affected women born between April 1951 and 1960, with some estimates suggesting that as many as 3.6 to 3.8 million women across the UK were impacted.

Campaigners say the reforms were implemented too quickly and without sufficient warning, leaving many financially unprepared for the additional years before they could claim their state pension. Angela Madden, chairwoman of Waspi, minced no words in her condemnation of the latest government decision, telling BBC News, "This is a disgraceful political choice by a small group of very powerful people who have decided the harm and injustice suffered by millions of ordinary women simply does not matter." She added, "We know it’s a political choice. We know the government could pay us if it wanted to." Madden confirmed that Waspi is seeking legal advice and is prepared to pursue every avenue, both in Parliament and in the courts, to secure what the group sees as long-overdue justice.

The government’s position, however, remains unmoved. Pat McFadden explained that a targeted compensation program would "not be practical," and that a wider flat-rate scheme could cost up to £10.3 billion—a sum he argued would be unfair, as it would "be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes." He stated in Parliament, "The evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide range of public information, including through leaflets, education campaigns, information in GP surgeries, on TV, radio, cinema and online."

McFadden did, however, acknowledge the government’s shortcomings in communication. "We accept that individual letters about changes to the state pension age could have been sent earlier. For this, I want to repeat the apology that (former work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall) gave on behalf of the Government. And I am sorry that those letters were not sent sooner." He went on to echo the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, stating, "We also agree with the ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay."

The dispute over compensation has its roots in a 2007 Department for Work and Pensions evaluation, which led officials to stop sending out automatic pension forecast letters. The rediscovery of this evaluation prompted Labour to review its previous policy of not offering redress. Yet, after sifting through the evidence—including the 2007 survey—the government concluded that most affected women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. McFadden argued that "those less knowledgeable about pensions, the very women who most needed to engage with a letter and where it might have made a difference, were the least likely to read it, so an earlier letter would have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age."

For many campaigners and politicians, this reasoning rings hollow. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman had previously found maladministration and injustice in the government’s handling of the changes, recommending compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 for each affected woman. However, as BBC News noted, the ombudsman can only recommend compensation, not enforce it, and the government has repeatedly rejected the recommendation.

Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Inequality for Women, was among those voicing strong criticism. "It is frankly wrong that the Government has once again chosen to reject compensation for the 1950s women affected by state pension age changes," she said in Parliament. "The advice to Government was clear, and blatantly ignoring those recommendations not only undermines the authority of the Ombudsman, it sends a damaging message about how the state responds when it gets things wrong. Put simply, it will not right historical wrongs even when its own independent advisers tell it to."

The political backlash was not limited to Labour. Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman Steve Darling called the decision a "punch in the stomach" for the millions affected, accusing the government of giving "false hope" in the autumn only to dash it now. Plaid Cymru’s Ann Davies echoed these sentiments, saying, "An apology without compensation is not justice and these women deserve far more than words, they deserve a fair redress to right this injustice once and for all." Even Conservative politicians accused the government of "cynical politics," highlighting the widespread frustration across party lines.

For those on the receiving end of the changes, the personal impact has been profound. Pat Pollington, a 71-year-old affected by the reforms, told BBC News that the changes meant she had to work for years longer than she had anticipated. She described the government’s handling of the situation as a "fiasco," saying she was "not in the least surprised" by the latest decision. Pollington added that while compensation looks expensive, "it is only a drop in the ocean for the government, which she said is focused on the wrong priorities."

The government’s refusal to compensate has also raised broader questions about accountability and the state’s responsibility to its citizens. Critics argue that ignoring the ombudsman’s recommendations undermines public trust in independent oversight bodies and sets a worrying precedent for how the government addresses its own mistakes. As the BBC highlighted, the issue has become a touchstone for debates about fairness, transparency, and the treatment of women by the state.

Despite the government’s insistence that the majority of women were aware of the changes, many affected individuals maintain they were caught off guard, left financially vulnerable in their later years. The Waspi campaign shows no sign of losing momentum, with legal action now being considered and campaigners vowing to keep the pressure on both in Parliament and in the courts.

As the dust settles on the latest government announcement, the sense of injustice among Waspi women remains undiminished. Whether the courts or future governments will eventually deliver the compensation they seek is an open question—but for now, the fight continues.