The great Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once opined, “Power has only one duty – to secure the social welfare of the people”.

Holding governments accountable is integral to the legitimacy they derive from their democratic mandate. Beyond the framework of parliamentary accountability, various checks and balances have been established over time to ensure good governance.

While our excellent select committees, and the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I serve, play essential roles, the office of the Ombudsman has emerged as one of the most respected sources of retrospective scrutiny of government.

Referrals for their considered judgment are not mere formalities in our political system; they have become essential components of it.

MPs across the political spectrum understand that, just as we don’t send matters to the Ombudsman lightly, neither should we take their rulings lightly.

A government that attempts to brush under the carpet fallacies, faults and frailties identified by the Ombudsman is guilty not just of lousy housekeeping but of concealing systemic failures.

This is precisely what has occurred in the case of the WASPI women. In essence, as measures were introduced to equalise the retirement age, the government failed to let those affected know exactly what that meant for them.

The result was that many women were given less than two years’ notice that they would have to work five years longer.

These women, born in the 1950s, are mothers and grandmothers who worked tirelessly to raise families and support communities. They played by the rules, contributed to the system, and rightfully expected that, when the time came, the state would honour its promise to them.

Many are far from well off, yet it seems that this Labour Government has no intention of giving them their just deserts.

In the investigation into the plight of the WASPIs, the Ombudsman found “maladministration in DWP’s communication regarding the 1995 Pensions Act”. As a result, these women were deprived of opportunities to make informed decisions and exercise personal autonomy, diminishing their financial control.

I have seldom encountered an Ombudsman’s report as unequivocal as this in its detail of maladministration by a government department. Yet, despite this ruling, the WASPI women continue to be denied compensation.

What saddens is not just the considerable financial hardship these women have endured but the moral failure underlying this failure. The WASPI women are not asking for charity; they seek justice. They are asking for what is theirs by right.

It is a fundamental tenet of British life that those who work hard and contribute to society are entitled to security in their later years.

To break that promise is to breach the very social contract that has long been the foundation of trust between government and the governed.

Some argue that compensating those affected by the change in retirement age is too costly, but I ask: what is the cost of failing to restore the broken trust of an entire generation?

These are individuals who gave up careers to care for children and elderly relatives, stepping in during times of national hardship without question.

Dismissing their claims is a denial of their inherent dignity. It tells these women their years of service and sacrifice mean nothing. Surely, no decent government should send such a message.

Few of those with power readily welcome criticism. Fewer still enjoy being chastised. But some correct mistakes, do what is just, and, in so doing, grace the very concept of political privilege with honour.

The challenge of meeting the reasonable demands of WASPI campaigners, by simply implementing what the independent Ombudsman recommended, is an opportunity for those in this Government to step up and dignify their office by doing what was recommended and reasonable.

The way the WASPI women have been treated is not fair, and when public faith in fairness is lost, to draw on WB Yeats, the ceremony of innocence is drowned as it becomes clear that the best lack all conviction.

I have lost neither the conviction nor the will to persist. We will persevere by using all parliamentary means to ensure the voices of these women are heard, and their rightful compensation is secured. Justice may be delayed, but I will continue to push for it to be served.