Committee publication · Correspondence · 11 March 2026
Correspondence with the Secretary of State, relating to the Government's revised decision on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report on 1950s women
Summary
Correspondence between the Work and Pensions Committee Chair and Secretary of State Pat McFadden regarding the Government's revised decision on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report into 1950s women's State Pension age communications. The Committee challenges the Government's rejection of compensation remedies despite accepting maladministration findings, questioning the effectiveness argument and asking for detailed justification of why proposed compensation schemes were deemed unfeasible.
Key findings
- Government accepted Ombudsman's finding of maladministration: DWP failed to send timely letters about State Pension age changes, with a 28-month delay between November 2006 and December 2007.
- Government rejected Ombudsman's recommended remedy based on argument that earlier letters would not have been effective, which the Ombudsman disputes—the maladministration was failing to send letters DWP itself deemed necessary.
- Three compensation schemes were considered: flat-rate payment (costing up to £10.3 billion), lower-income pensioner targeting, and individual assessment—all rejected as unfeasible or unfair.
- Committee requests detailed explanation of why compensation schemes were impractical, citing lack of sufficient design detail in Government's justification.
- Government disclosed that a 2007 research report relevant to the decision was not provided to the previous Secretary of State because 'potential relevance was not evident at the time', prompting Committee concerns about evidence collation processes.
Government position
Partially accepts. Government accepts the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration (delayed communication) but rejects the recommended remedy. Justification: (1) evidence suggests most 1950s women would not have read unsolicited pensions letters even if sent earlier; (2) all proposed compensation schemes fail fairness/feasibility tests—blanket schemes would compensate those unaffected, individualised assessment is impractical at scale, and group-based schemes don't reflect individual impact. Government cites alternative support: increased State Pension rates, Pension Credit, NHS investment. Acknowledges process failures in evidence collation and commits to process improvements.
Tone
AdversarialTopics
Key actors
Pat McFadden, Debbie Abrahams, Paula Sussex, Karl Bannister, Liz Kendall, Torsten Bell, Department for Work and Pensions, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Notable line
“It said it should do some things differently. Then it just did not do them.”
Key Quotes
“… the Ombudsman determined there had been a 28-month delay in sending out letters to 1950s-born women. The Ombudsman concluded this delay was maladministration and following consideration of the evidence I concluded we accept the Ombudsman's findings.”
“However, it is very difficult to justify these schemes on value for money, propriety or fairness grounds as we would also be paying many people who had not suffered an injustice”
“Our recommended remedy was predicated on the loss of opportunity. Despite accepting maladministration, the Government has dismissed the associated remedy by effectively raising the standard or threshold for loss beyond the level that we considered appropriate.”
“The core of the PHSO's argument was that DWP had delayed acting on what it found to be the best course of action: 2 House of Commons Palace of Westminster London SW1A 0AA workpencom@parliament.uk +44 (0)20 219 8976 Social: @CommonsWorkPen parliament.uk The Government at the time …”
“As I am sure you will agree, it would have been much more satisfactory to all parties for the original decision to have been made based on all the original evidence, avoiding the need for further delay and frustration.”
“There has been lots of publicity. It does not seem proportionate to me to ask the DWP to find people. People should come to the DWP.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗