WASPI campaigners have accused ministers of “gaslighting” them and denying millions of women’s experiences.
The Government suggested on Tuesday that 1950s-born women could get compensation for the way state pension changes were communicated.
This came after ministers said the Government would reconsider its decision not to give payouts after new evidence came to light.
But Angela Maden, chair of Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), said: “WASPI are challenging the decision the Government made last December after the country’s longest running Parliamentary Ombudsman investigation, followed by months of deliberation.
“The previous Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, confidently told Parliament there were “two facts—that most women knew the State Pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says” and that they meant “that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the Ombudsman’s report”.
“This was, of course, complete rubbish and a gaslighting denial of WASPI women’s lived experience.
“The Government seems to accept that it got at least one of those crucial so called ‘facts’ completely wrong because officials did not show her a DWP-commissioned report that completely contradicted it.
“That is scandalous – and all the more so because the Government has, until now with the hearing just a few weeks away, been defending our legal case on the basis that it is hopeless.
“It has said it will reconsider, and this time the Minister will be shown the withheld report. Why did that not happen in the first place? Why was that basic mistake not admitted when WASPI began its legal case? Why has the reconsideration not already happened?
“We do not know the answers to these questions yet. But we do know the Government is desperate to avoid a judge scrutinising its decision-making and so backpedalling away from the imminent hearing.
“The move also vindicates what WASPI has been saying all along –the Government’s decision on the Ombudsman’s report was fundamentally flawed. What this means for the case is a more complex question and we are considering our options with our lawyers.”
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said his department would review the policy, announced last year, not to compensate women born in the 1950s who were affected by the increase in the pension age.
It came as court proceedings led to the rediscovery a 2007 Department for Work and Pensions evaluation which had led to officials stopping sending automatic pension forecast letters out.
However, Mr McFadden offered campaigners no guarantees that the review would lead to compensation being awarded.
The minister said “in the interests of fairness and transparency”, the Government would reconsider its decision.
He said: “This means we will retake the decision made last December, as it relates to the communications on state pension age.”
He added: “I understand that people are impatient for this matter to be finally resolved with the ombudsman’s investigation having taken six years before reporting last year, but it is important that we give this full and proper consideration.
“Retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that it should award financial redress.”
