The Government’s Pick-and-Mix Approach to Accountability: Ombudsman Rejection Sets Dangerous Precedent

"The independent watchdog sits sidelined and ignored, while the Government plays judge, jury, and untouchable arbiter of accountability."

In a move that could generously be described as eyebrow-raising, the UK Government has chosen to brush aside the findings of its own independent watchdog, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The decision not to compensate the so-called Waspi women (Women Against State Pension Inequality) has provoked anger, disbelief, and a worrying question for the future: since when did governments get to “pick and choose” which ombudsman rulings they fancy adhering to?

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall delivered the bombshell in the Commons, explaining that compensation for 1950s-born women, who were blindsided by changes to their state pension age, was neither “fair nor proportionate” to taxpayers. Never mind that the PHSO deemed the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) guilty of maladministration. Never mind that the watchdog recommended modest compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 for each affected woman. The Government, as it turns out, simply doesn’t agree.

In essence: thank you very much for your hard work, Ombudsman, but we’ll take it from here.

Ignoring the Watchdog: A Slap in the Face to Accountability

The PHSO’s findings were clear: the DWP failed to adequately inform millions of women of changes that would see their state pension age rise, first from 60 to 65, and then to 66. These were life-altering adjustments, communicated with all the finesse of a post-it note flung into the wind. Many women, believing they were still on track to retire at 60, found themselves facing delayed retirement, financial hardship, and impossible choices: sell their homes, keep working despite ill health, or prematurely drain savings.

The Ombudsman’s recommendation was measured, hardly revolutionary. Compensation, it argued, was warranted as a means to acknowledge the injustice caused. Yet Liz Kendall, on behalf of the Government, dismissed this outright, instead opting for a verbal pat on the back and an assurance that lessons had been learned.

And what a valuable lesson it is: if a department messes up, admit it, apologise for it, but whatever you do, don’t pay for it.

The Dangerous Precedent

Steve Webb, former pensions minister and partner at consultancy firm LCP, aptly captured the implications of this decision: “If it is acceptable for a Department to completely reject the findings of a report by the independent Parliamentary Ombudsman, this strikes a blow at the heart of the whole process.”

In other words, what exactly is the point of the Ombudsman if its recommendations can be dismissed with a wave of a ministerial hand? The PHSO is supposed to serve as a safeguard against government malpractice. It exists to protect the public interest, holding departments to account when their failures harm individuals. If its authority can be so casually undermined, what’s to stop future governments from “picking and choosing” which uncomfortable truths they acknowledge?

The Government’s rejection has, as Webb put it, turned the DWP into “judge and jury”. If watchdogs are to remain mere window dressing—useful for optics, but disposable in practice—then the accountability framework designed to protect citizens from maladministration starts to crumble.

A Slap in the Face for Waspi Women

The Waspi campaign has been a long, painful battle for recognition. Its chair, Angela Madden, didn’t mince words when she called the Government’s decision “bizarre and totally unjustified”. She posed a question many are now asking: if the Government can ignore an independent watchdog, what faith should the public have in the process?

“An overwhelming majority of MPs back Waspi’s calls for fair compensation,” Madden said, vowing to keep fighting. Indeed, with growing cross-party support for the campaign—and voices from the Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Labour decrying the Government’s decision as “disgraceful” and a “devastating betrayal”—the backlash is unlikely to fade quietly.

Conclusion: Who Watches the Watchmen?

The Government’s rejection of the Ombudsman’s findings goes far beyond the Waspi compensation issue. It sets an alarming precedent: if watchdogs can be disregarded when their conclusions prove inconvenient, what’s left to hold power to account? This isn’t just about pensions. It’s about trust in the institutions that are supposed to protect the public from government missteps.

As one commentator wryly observed, it’s only a matter of time before “watchdog” becomes a synonym for ‘toothless lapdog’. If this precedent is allowed to stand, don’t be surprised when future governments make a habit of shrugging off accountability altogether. After all, it’s far easier to simply declare yourself in the right than to face the financial and moral cost of admitting you were wrong.