Welsh campaigners demand clarity from ministers as WASPI legal costs deal faces scrutiny

CAMPAIGNERS representing women born in the 1950s have written to the UK Government demanding urgent clarification over what ministers are calling “new evidence” on state pension age changes – and why the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) agreed to pay £180,000 towards legal costs when a High Court cap had been set at £90,000.

In a strongly worded email sent on Monday (Dec 15), Jackie Gilderdale and Kay Clarke, writing on behalf of 1950s Women of Wales, 50s Women United and Pension Partners for Justice, asked Pensions Minister Torsten Bell and Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden to explain the Government’s position ahead of a planned meeting with MPs in January.

They warn that, if ministers do not provide a “full and substantive” response, they will file Freedom of Information requests and escalate the issue to the National Audit Office (NAO) and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.

FIRST, THE ‘NEW EVIDENCE’

The Welsh-based group say they are “seeking urgent clarity” about repeated references in Westminster to “new evidence” relating to the way changes to women’s state pension age were communicated.

They argue that key material being talked about publicly is not new at all, but was uncovered years ago during the early stages of the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign.

In their letter, Jackie and Kay say the omission of state pension age rises for women from automatic pension forecasts “as early as 2003” was documented by the original WASPI co-founders, widely used in campaigning work and held by law firm Bindmans “for almost a decade”.

“It CANNOT credibly be described as new,” they write.

The email asks the ministers to spell out:

1. What evidence is being described as “new”;
2. When that evidence first came into the possession of Government, MPs and legal representatives; and
3. Why “long established, documented evidence is now being presented in this manner”.

They also point to the fact that some material was once published on the WASPI website but later removed by the current WASPI leadership, led by Angela Madden, saying the reason “has never been explained”.

COSTS CAP AND £180,000 PAYMENT

The second major concern raised in the correspondence is the size of the DWP’s contribution to WASPI’s legal costs after the recent judicial review was halted.

The campaigners highlight that a costs capping order in the High Court proceedings limited the department’s liability to £90,000, yet the DWP has since confirmed it will pay £180,000 towards WASPI’s costs.

“This raises significant concerns regarding value for money, propriety and regularity, which fall within the scrutiny remit of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee,” the letter states.

“It is unclear on what basis this excess payment was authorised, who approved it, or how it complied with principles of public financial management and ministerial accountability.”

Jackie and Kay say that unless ministers set out a clear justification for the payment, they will “proceed with a formal Freedom of Information request and refer the matter to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee for full investigation”.

They also argue that, in a climate of tight public finances, any decision to go beyond a court-imposed cap should be fully explained to Parliament and the public.

CALL FOR INCLUSIVE MEDIATION

Underpinning the exchange is a long-running demand by 1950s Women of Wales and allied groups for formal mediation between the Government and all major campaign organisations representing women affected by pension age changes.

They point to recent changes to the Civil Procedure Rules and to case law encouraging courts and public bodies to make greater use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), including mediation.

“As Pensions Minister, Mr Bell has a duty to engage constructively in mediation with leaders of all 1950s women groups,” they write, adding that these groups “possess further evidence requiring scrutiny”.

“To decline or ignore such engagement would risk breaching ministerial duties; fail to meet legal expectations and be manifestly unjust to the women impacted.”

The letter asks for written confirmation that the Minister will now engage in mediation “in line with the Civil Procedure Rules and 2024 ADR requirements”.

SECRECY ROW OVER DECEMBER HEARING

The latest intervention also revisits controversy around the handling of a court hearing on 3 December, linked to the WASPI judicial review.

In earlier emails copied into the thread, Jackie and Kay describe the arrangements for public access to that hearing as an “extraordinary scandal”, claiming the DWP and WASPI agreed to conditions which “effectively repudiated the principle of open justice” by limiting or charging for access.

They say it took an intervention by a High Court judge shortly before the hearing to restore open access, after which both parties withdrew their applications and the case did not proceed.

The campaigners argue that this sequence “raises profound questions” and are calling for greater transparency about why the case collapsed and what, if anything, was being “concealed”.

Those comments are allegations by the campaign group; there is no suggestion that any party has accepted that characterisation of events.

WASPI GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS

Alongside criticism of Government, the Welsh group is also calling for scrutiny of WASPI’s own governance.

In previous correspondence, they raised concerns about:

• apparent discrepancies between public statements about resignations and the directors still listed on Companies House;
• the group’s internal accountability; and
• whether WASPI’s leadership structure reflects those it claims to represent.

They argue that, by WASPI’s own figures, the organisation represents a relatively small proportion of the estimated 3.8 million women affected by state pension age changes, and say ministers should not treat it as the sole voice of the cohort.

“Government cannot be expected to engage with a company whose own governance raises such substantial questions,” one email says, while stressing that all groups – including WASPI – should be involved in any settlement process.

“WOMEN DESERVE HONESTY”

The latest message concludes by saying that women born in the 1950s “deserve honesty, transparency and accountability”.

“Anything less further undermines trust in the political process and perpetuates an injustice that has already endured for far too long, and cost a vast number of lives,” Jackie and Kay write.

They tell the ministers that, if their questions are ignored, they will ensure the full group of All-Party Parliamentary Group members, cross-party MPs and the wider public “are fully informed”.

The Herald has approached Torsten Bell MP, Pat McFadden MP and Bindmans for comment.

In an emailed response to The Herald’s questions on Monday, a DWP spokesperson said: “Last month we committed to retake the decision and as set out, we will do so within 3 months.

“This should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that it should award financial compensation.”

A spokesperson for Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) said: “Just days before WASPI’s judicial review was set to take place, the Government backed down and agreed to reconsider all the evidence in the case by the end of February, and to pay WASPI £180,000 in legal costs – an increase on the costs cap.

“Prior to the expected hearing date, WASPI secured an agreement for the case to be screened online, in the public interest. However, the case was not in the end heard given the out-of-court settlement.

“WASPI continues to fight for fair and fast compensation for 1950s women and we enjoy the clear backing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman who concluded compensation was due following a thorough six year inquiry.”