Prime Minister Andy Burnham backed ‘recompense’ for WASPI women (Image: Getty)
Campaigners have accused the Government of “lying through its teeth” over claims it cannot afford to pay compensation to women affected by increases to the state pension age. The Treasury is sitting on a fund of up to £70 billion according to Silver Voices, which fights to protect the interests of older people.
Director Dennis Reed pointed out that the Prime Minister previously backed paying “recompense”. He said: “Andy Burnham must stop wriggling out of his firm promises”. Silver Voices called on the Government to use money going spare in the National Insurance Fund to compensate so-called WASPI women, who are currently locked in a legal battle with Ministers. The fund holds contributions from employees, employers and the self-employed, which are kept separate from other revenue raised by national taxes and used to pay benefits including the state pension.
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
HM Revenue and Customs documents show the fund held £79.3 billion in March last year. The Treasury aims to ensure the fund holds 16.7% of projected annual benefit expenditure at any one time – which is around £24.2 billion. It suggests up to £55 billion could potentially be available for other uses.
The Treasury insisted any spare cash in the fund was invested, earning interest for the taxpayer and reducing the amount the Government needs to borrow.
But Mr Reed said: “The Government is lying through its teeth when it says that just compensation for the WASPI women cannot be afforded. There is an unused surplus of over £70 billion sitting in Treasury coffers, which has been funded by workers’ and employers’ National Insurance contributions, a small part of which should be used to put this scandal to bed.
“Not only is the funding available, it could be signed off tomorrow without spooking the markets or leading to budget cuts elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of these proud women have already died waiting for redress and it is time that this scandal was consigned to history.”
A Treasury spokesperson said: “This fund is to ensure the State Pension and other contributory benefits can continue to be paid. Money that is not immediately needed to pay benefits is invested, earning interest for the Fund and reducing the amount the Government needs to borrow.”
Mr Burnham appeared to support paying compensation to WASPI women when he was standing as a candidate in the Makerfield by-election in June. He told a hustings event: “I’ll stick by the WASPI women because they deserve some recompense for the unfairness.”
But the Government is continuing to reject the recommendation of the parliamentary ombudsman, which has called for compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 for each of those affected. Campaigners say 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not properly informed of the rise in state pension age to bring them into line with men,
The Department for Work and Pensions said compensation could cost up to £10.5 billion, warning: “The burden of such a significant financial commitment would fall on current and future taxpayers … there are very clear indications that borrowing today will add to a significant national debt burden in the future.”
The WASPI campaign is pursuing a judicial review but has invited the Government to take part in talks as an alternative to legal action
Andy Burnham’s Government Accused of “Lying Through Its Teeth” Over WASPI Compensation
Andy Burnham’s government is facing renewed criticism over its decision not to compensate women affected by changes to the state pension age, after campaigners accused ministers of claiming that compensation is unaffordable despite the existence of a large National Insurance Fund surplus.
The row centres on the millions of women born in the 1950s who have campaigned for compensation over changes that increased the age at which they could claim the state pension.
Silver Voices, an organisation campaigning on issues affecting older people, has argued that money held in the National Insurance Fund could be used to provide compensation.
Its director, Dennis Reed, accused the government of “lying through its teeth” when claiming that compensation could not be afforded. That is a campaigner’s allegation, not an established fact. The Treasury disputes the interpretation of the fund’s surplus and says money not immediately required for benefits is invested and helps reduce government borrowing.
The controversy is particularly sensitive because Burnham himself previously expressed support for the WASPI campaign before becoming prime minister.
Burnham’s earlier pledge
During a hustings event connected with the Makerfield by-election in June, Burnham said he would continue supporting WASPI campaigners because he believed they deserved “some recompense” for what he described as unfairness.
His comments were widely interpreted as support for compensation.
However, within days, his position was clarified.
Burnham’s spokeswoman said he accepted that the final decision had already been made and that, rather than introducing a large compensation scheme, he was open to alternative forms of support such as subsidised transport.
The change created an immediate political controversy because Burnham had previously presented himself as a supporter of the campaign.
That history is now central to the latest criticism.
Campaigners argue that Burnham’s earlier words created an expectation that his government would revisit the issue.
The government maintains that it has considered the evidence and reached a final decision against financial compensation.
What are WASPI women campaigning for?
The Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign represents women born in the 1950s who were affected by increases in women’s state pension age.
Historically, women’s State Pension age was 60 while men’s was 65.
The Pensions Act 1995 began the process of equalising the ages. Subsequent legislation accelerated parts of the timetable, with women’s State Pension age eventually reaching 65 in November 2018 and the equalisation at 66 being completed in October 2020.
The WASPI campaign is not primarily arguing that the policy decision to equalise pension ages was itself unlawful.
Its argument has focused on how women were informed about the changes and the impact that inadequate communication allegedly had on their retirement planning.
That distinction is important because the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigated the administration and communication surrounding the changes rather than deciding whether the underlying pension-age policy itself should have existed.
What did the Ombudsman find?
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found that government decision-making between August 2005 and December 2007 resulted in a 28-month delay in beginning to send individual letters to women born in the 1950s about changes to State Pension age.
The government has accepted that delay.
It has also apologised for not sending individual letters earlier.
However, the government disputes some of the Ombudsman’s conclusions concerning the extent of the resulting injustice.
The government says evidence showed that awareness of the increase was already relatively high among women affected. Its June 2026 response cited research showing that 73% of women in the relevant group knew in 2004 that State Pension age was changing, rising to 90% in 2006, although some did not know their precise pension age.
This disagreement is at the heart of the compensation dispute.
The proposed compensation
The Ombudsman said it would have recommended compensation at level four of its injustice scale, amounting to between £1,000 and £2,950 for each of the six sample complainants it examined.
It also recommended that the government establish a remedy for other 1950s-born women who had suffered injustice because of the maladministration identified.
The potential cost of a national scheme has been estimated in the billions.
The Department for Work and Pensions has warned that compensation could cost up to around £10.5 billion, depending on the design and number of recipients.
That figure is one reason ministers have resisted calls for a blanket payment.
Why the government says it cannot justify compensation
The government’s June response explicitly rejected the creation of a financial compensation scheme.
Ministers argued that establishing individual injustice would be extremely difficult because the government would have to determine what each woman knew at the time and whether receiving an earlier letter would actually have changed her decisions.
The government also rejected a universal flat-rate scheme.
Its argument is that such a system could result in substantial payments to people who already knew that their pension age was changing or who would not have changed their retirement plans even if they had received an earlier letter.
The government therefore concluded that a compensation scheme would not be fair, feasible or good value for taxpayers.
It has instead committed to improving the way future changes to State Pension rules are communicated.
The National Insurance Fund controversy
The latest political row concerns the National Insurance Fund.
According to figures cited by Silver Voices, the fund held £79.3 billion in March of the previous year.
Campaigners argue that, after accounting for the amount needed to support contributory benefits, tens of billions of pounds could potentially be available.
They therefore say that a relatively small proportion of the fund could be used to compensate WASPI women without requiring major tax rises or cuts to public services.
The Treasury rejects that interpretation.
Its explanation is that money not immediately required to pay benefits is invested. The return on those investments benefits the fund, while the arrangement also reduces the amount the government needs to borrow.
That means the existence of a large balance does not automatically mean the government has a pot of cash that can simply be distributed for another purpose.
The dispute is therefore partly about accounting and partly about priorities.
Why the issue remains politically explosive
The controversy has particular resonance because many of the women involved have already reached or passed State Pension age.
All women born in the 1950s had reached State Pension age by April 2026.
For campaigners, this makes the continuing uncertainty especially frustrating.
Some women have argued that the delayed communications affected decisions about employment, retirement, savings and family finances.
The government, however, says it cannot establish that the delayed letters caused direct financial loss in the cases investigated by the Ombudsman.
Its June response states that the six sample complainants examined by the Ombudsman had not suffered direct financial loss as established in the investigation.
This is a crucial distinction.
The Ombudsman identified maladministration in the communication process, but the government disputes the conclusion that this automatically establishes compensable financial injustice for the wider population.
Burnham’s political dilemma
For Burnham, the issue is complicated by his own history with the campaign.
Before entering Downing Street, he publicly backed the principle that WASPI women deserved recompense.
After becoming prime minister, however, his government accepted the existing decision against financial compensation.
That creates an obvious tension.
Campaigners can point to his previous words and ask why his position changed.
The government can respond that there is a difference between supporting the principle of recognising unfairness and agreeing to a particular multibillion-pound compensation scheme.
Burnham has also indicated that non-financial measures could be considered.
The Guardian reported that he was open to alternatives such as subsidised transport after ruling out a direct financial compensation scheme.
Whether such measures would satisfy campaigners is another question.
The WASPI campaign has continued to pursue legal action and has invited the government to participate in discussions as an alternative to litigation.
The legal battle continues
The campaign’s legal strategy means the issue is not necessarily finished.
WASPI campaigners have been pursuing a judicial review of the government’s refusal to introduce compensation.
That creates the possibility that the dispute could continue through the courts even after ministers have formally rejected a compensation scheme.
A judicial review would not necessarily mean that a court orders a specific compensation payment. Its role would be to examine the lawfulness of the government’s decision-making.
That distinction is important when assessing what may happen next.
A dispute over fairness and public money
The WASPI controversy ultimately involves two competing principles.
One is fairness to women who were affected by delayed communication about a major change to their retirement expectations.
The other is fairness to the wider taxpayer, particularly when a compensation scheme could cost several billion pounds.
The government says it has accepted the communication failure, apologised for the delay and committed to improving future pension communications, but believes a large compensation scheme would be difficult to justify.
Campaigners argue that acknowledging maladministration without providing financial redress leaves the central injustice unresolved.
The National Insurance Fund has now become another battleground.
Silver Voices says the government’s financial argument does not withstand scrutiny because substantial funds are available.
The Treasury says those funds are part of the financing arrangements for contributory benefits and are invested to support the public finances.
Neither description by itself resolves the wider question of whether compensation should be paid.
What happens next?
For the WASPI women and their supporters, the next stage will depend heavily on the continuing legal challenge and any discussions with the government.
For Burnham, the political difficulty is equally clear.
His previous support for “recompense” remains part of the public record, while his government has now formally decided against financial compensation.
The accusation that ministers are “lying through their teeth” is therefore a campaigner’s description of that disagreement, rather than an established finding. The government’s documented position is that a compensation scheme would be impractical, potentially very expensive and unfair to taxpayers who were aware of the pension-age changes or would not have been affected by earlier letters.
At the same time, the government has acknowledged that a 28-month delay in sending individual letters occurred and has apologised for that failure.
That leaves the central argument unresolved.
The dispute is no longer simply about whether mistakes were made. The government accepts that there was a delay.
The real question is whether that failure created sufficient injustice to justify billions of pounds in compensation — and whether the public finances can or should absorb the cost.
Until the courts, campaigners and government reach a further stage in that debate, the WASPI controversy is likely to remain one of the most difficult pension issues facing Burnham’s administration.