MP likens Government to flat-earthers over refusal to compensate Waspi women
Labour's Rebecca Long Bailey said the arguments against compensation for the 1950s-born women are 'bizarre' and akin to those made by people who believe the Earth is flat.
The Government last December ruled out a compensation package for women born in the 1950s, whose state pension age was raised so it would be equal with men.
This is despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves being among the senior ministers to support the Waspi campaign when Labour was in opposition.
A report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) had recommended the UK Government pay compensation to women born in the 1950s whose state pension age was raised so it would be equal with men.
The watchdog also said the women should be paid up to £2,950 each, a package with a potential total cost of £10.5 billion to the public purse, as poor communication meant they had lost out on the chance to plan their retirement finances.
The Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) group is currently seeking a judicial review to force the Government to reconsider its decision to rule out a compensation package.
Work and pensions minister Torsten Bell, who is also a Treasury minister, said the Government does not agree with the Ombudsman's approach 'to injustice or to remedy'.
Speaking in the Commons, Ms Long Bailey argued that 'cost does not need to be and should not be a barrier to justice', as she urged the Government to introduce a wealth tax to fund a compensation scheme.
The MP for Salford said: 'I don't want (Mr Bell) to go down in history as the man who denied justice for the 1950s women, I honestly don't. I want to see action on this, and I want him to go down as the person who finally, finally managed to award them justice.
'But at the moment, he's got to understand that the arguments being put forward by the Government are absurd, to say the least. In fact, they're akin to somebody arguing that the world is flat, in denying the Ombudsman's report.'
Earlier in her contribution, the former Labour leadership candidate, who had called the debate, disputed the Government's assertion that the women knew the change was coming.
She said: 'Whilst the Government agreed with the finding of maladministration and apologised, no redress would be forthcoming.
'And contrary to the Ombudsman, they actually felt that the majority of women did know about changes to their pension age, based on Department for Work and Pensions research, and that sending the women letters would not have been effective, which I'm sure most people would agree is bizarre.
'It's pretty effective when a bill addressed to you coming through your door comes through, it's pretty effective when it's a hospital appointment, it's pretty effective on the very rare but joyous occasion that HMRC gives you a tax rebate cheque.
'So, I ask, honestly, would 1950s-born women have actively refused to open letters with their name on from the DWP? It makes no sense.'
Ms Long Bailey went on to say: 'In terms of options to make sure that schemes could be financially sustainable, Waspi have calculated that HM Treasury have saved a whopping £181 billion alone by increasing the state pension age.
'Well, there's other options, there's the option of applying a 1% to 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, raising up to £22 billion a year. Equalise capital gains tax with income tax rates, raising £15.2 billion a year. Apply national insurance to investment income, raising £8.6 billion a year.
'End stealth subsidies on banks, and you get up to £55 billion over the next five years, and even Gordon Brown has advocated for this. So cost does not need to be, and should not be, a barrier to justice.'
During the debate, Independent MP for Hayes and Harlington, John McDonnell joked that the Government would soon be proscribing the Waspi group.
On Wednesday, MPs supported legislation to proscribe the Palestine Action group as a terrorist organisation.
Mr McDonnell said: 'I pay tribute to the campaign. A lot of those ladies have been patronised over the years, it was a terrific campaign. In fact, it was so terrific under this Government at the moment, they would probably be proscribed.'
Responding to the debate, Mr Bell said: 'We agree that letters should have been sent sooner. We have apologised, and we will learn the lessons from that.
'However, as honourable members and campaigners on this issue are well aware, we do not agree with the Ombudsman's approach to injustice or to remedy.'
He added: 'An important consideration when making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely (to) affect what they knew, which is why letters are sent, but they are sent as part of wider communication campaigns.
'This evidence was not properly considered by the Ombudsman.
'Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware that the state pension age was changing, if not their specific state pension age.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform backtrack on claim ‘trans-related' library book was in children's section
A Reform -led council has backtracked on its 'trans-related' library book ban, suggesting the move is 'not a change of policy' after conflicting social media posts from councillors. Earlier this week, Kent County Council (KCC) leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect after a fellow Reform Councillor said he had been informed of 'transgender ideologies' in the children 's section of a library. But KCC has since said that the book which triggered the ban was in fact on display at the front of a library in Herne Bay, rather than the children's section. The council's Liberal Democrat opposition leader, Antony Hook has said that Reform not following 'proper process' in the council and announcing things on social media has created uncertainty. Cllr Kemkaran added on X that 'telling children they're in the 'wrong body' is wrong and simply unacceptable' and said that 'trans-related' works would be removed from the children's sections of all 99 of the county's libraries. The book Reform were referring to was The Autistic Trans Guide to Life by Yenn Purkis and Dr Wenn Lawson, which is a book for autistic trans and/or non-binary adults marketed as providing 'tools and strategies they need to live as their best self'. There is no suggestion from the promotional material around the book that it contains any reference to telling children they are in the 'wrong bodies'. In his video posted to social media on Thursday, the Reform Cllr responsible for the ban Paul Webb claimed: 'I was recently contacted by a concerned member of the public who found trans-ideological material and books in the children's section of one of our libraries – I've looked into this, and it was the case. 'I have today issued an instruction for them all to be removed from the children's section of our libraries.' The council has since rowed back on his suggestion that the book was in the children's section and says that they have not, in fact, changed policy. A KCC spokesperson told PA Media: 'We have not changed policy. We have simply issued internal instructions to reaffirm existing expectations: that adult books are not to be placed in areas specifically aimed at children, such as children's sections or public welcome displays where children select books.' It is unclear how the council will classify transgender-related books, and whether there will be a tangible change as a result of this instruction. Cllr Webb, the Cabinet Member for Community & Regulatory Services said: 'We rightly place child protection and safeguarding at the very top of our list of priorities, as should all adults, especially those that hold public office.' Cllr Kemkaran heralded her colleagues' actions as showing 'courage and common sense in Kent' on X. Cllr Hook told the BBC: 'It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council.' The copy of The Autistic Trans Guide to Life has been moved from a display at the front of the library 'to a section that is unlikely to be visited by children', the KCC spokesperson said.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Should we be concerned about multiple tiers of British justice?
Stories about 'two-tier' policing and justice have become a frequent feature in the news. Just this week, there's been yet another 'two-tier' policing row over a pro-Palestine protestor dressed as a holocaust concentration camp inmate and Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, no less, has said allegations of 'two-tier' justice are 'disgusting '. Then there's the ongoing reports about Lucy Connolly. She was sentenced to 31 months in prison for an ill-judged post on X about asylum seekers (which she later deleted). The appeal to reduce her sentence failed, but when serious offences receive lesser sentencing, there are legitimate grounds for concern. Everyone must be treated equally before the law, but public perception as to whether this remains the case is being harmed and presents a crisis of trust in our institutions. So, is the Attorney General wrong to express his criticism of those speaking up on the status quo? My new report for Civitas delves into examples of 'two-tier' policing and justice. My findings indicate public perception around police impartiality and justice have indeed been eroded over the decades. None of this should be taken lightly, given impartiality is central to the police's commitment to discharge their duties, 'without fear or favour' – but there are examples of where policing might be viewed as operating, 'with fear and favour'. Are some groups, like the white working class, treated differently to others? Are they treated equally to Black Lives Matter (who Starmer took the knee for, whilst in opposition), climate protestors or Muslim counter protestors following the Southport tragedy? Last summer's disorder was a focal point, but racial and religious sensitivities have long impacted justice for grooming gang survivors. A hierarchical hate crime policy for Britain's faith groups, plus allegations of two-tier policing since October 7, give rise to further questions about impartiality. The existing policing approach reflects that rather than operating on a colour-blind or community-blind basis, the attempt was made by police to compensate for the allegation stemming from the Macpherson inquiry of 'institutional racism' – by policing different communities in different ways. Although this is well intentioned, it is not without consequence. The Government have pushed back on this framing. In fact in April, the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into the 2024 riots referred to 'unsubstantiated and disgraceful claims of 'two-tier policing''. The state's decisive action to quell disorder, post Southport against so-called 'far-Right thugs' (a narrative later proven to be false) was of course necessary, but it contrasts with the approach to the Roma riots in Harehills (Leeds) where at one point, the police retreated after becoming the target of the mob themselves, or disorder by predominantly Muslim counter-protestors in Bordesley Green (Birmingham) where journalists were targeted and a white man attacked outside a pub. Remarkably, Leeds City Council issued a joint statement (a day after Harehills) praising the Romanian/Roma community contribution to, 'the diversity and richness of the Harehills'. Meanwhile, despite the serious public disorder in Birmingham, reports indicated 'a lack of police presence'. West Midlands Police consulted 'community leaders' prior to the disorder, and Harehills was largely viewed as a community issue. The 'community leader' gatekeeper concept, when applied to some groups, but not others, introduces an element of police bias. Worst still, the Home Office X account referred to the post-Southport protestors as 'criminals' even before they had been tried in court, removing the legal principle of presumption of innocence. Justice for them was indeed swift – the disorder broke out on 30 July, with the first prison sentences announced a week later. Meanwhile, a suspended Labour councillor who pleaded not guilty to encouraging violent disorder last summer is going to trial in August 2025 – a year on. But allegations of impartial policing or policy aren't restricted to how the state deals with public order. Take the recording of hate crime, or Orwellian non-crime-hate-incidents (NCHIs) for religion. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are prioritised. The Government's secretive 'Islamophobia' working group, tasked with putting together a new definition should really pause until completion of the national grooming gang inquiry. That's because allegations of so-called 'Islamophobia' could stifle open discussion. But why does the Government not also define anti-Christian, anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh hatred, whilst they're at it? Or better still – treat them all on one equal footing? After the targeting of a mosque in Southport last summer, the Government announced additional 'emergency' security funding for mosques to build on the existing £29 million fund in place last year, allocated to the standalone Protective Security for Mosques Scheme. But no 'emergency' funding announcement came forth when a Hindu temple in Leicester (and one in Birmingham) was targeted during the Hindu-Muslim disorder back in 2022. Standalone funding schemes dedicated to protecting places of worship exist for some religious groups, but not others. Although the Government will continue to dismiss claims of 'two-tier' justice, in April it was forced to introduce emergency legislation to kibosh guidelines specifying preferential treatment for 'minority' communities to, 'prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council guidelines and avoid any unintended discrimination'. As I discovered, there are many examples of where identity politics and progressivist causes have trumped impartial policing. It is time to reinstate equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of their politics, religion or identity grouping.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
The leadership rumours inside Labour that speak volumes about Starmer's future
The images of Rachel Reeves crying on the frontbenches during PMQs on Wednesday – just hours after the government was forced into a humiliating £5bn climbdown on welfare – were stark. It looked like Sir Keir Starmer's top team was on the brink of falling apart. But the following day, the prime minister came out fighting, insisting his chancellor – who also looked notably more cheery – was here to stay. A minister in tears would make news any day of the year. But on a day when questions over the prime minister's leadership were already splashed across the papers, just days before he was due to mark one year in office, the image was even more jarring for Labour – and only served to add fuel to growing questions about whether or not he is the right person for the job. For weeks now, there have been whisperings of a possible leadership bid by Angela Rayner. The housing secretary's repeated attempts to shut down the rumours – saying she has no desire to hold the top job – have done little to dampen speculation. The rumours speak volumes about the level of disaffection within the party over Sir Keir's leadership and the direction of government. Labour won a thumping majority at last year's general election. They had a clear mandate to deliver their so-called 'plan for change' and there was a real sense of optimism. But just one year on, that optimism is well and truly gone. After repeated attempts to reset the narrative, the prime minister's authority has been damaged, while brutal polling shows that voters have turned away. And this week's humiliating welfare debacle, which saw the PM gut his reforms entirely only to still be faced with the largest rebellion of his premiership so far – has only added to his mounting woes. Behind the scenes, there is now more wrangling than ever over where Labour goes next. If Tuesday's welfare vote proved anything, it's that Labour MPs are far more left-wing than their party's leader. Starmer has been attempting to pull the party to the right both to try to combat the threat posed by Reform, but also to deliver a government that meets the expectations of the British public. But as a result of failings in Downing Street, and obfuscations from his own MPs, it hasn't worked. There are now growing calls for a reset in No 10. The problem, however, is that this isn't the first time the prime minister has attempted to do so. We've seen repeated attempts to draw a line under previous mistakes and fumbles from the government, but no real change in direction. Despite Starmer's insistence that his chancellor is here to stay, there is a growing feeling that without a reshuffle, the PM will be unable to truly draw a line under the past year. If he can accompany that with both a clear plan to plug gaps in the public finances after several U-turns – including Tuesday's welfare chaos and previous rowbacks on winter fuel payments – alongside a genuine strategy to bring down immigration, he may be able to turn his fortunes around. But if that fails, and Starmer is unable to use a reshuffle to save some of his own authority, there is a small but growing chance the prime minister will be booted out before the next election. Championed by the so-called 'soft left', there is now a developing feeling within Labour that if the party, led by Rayner, provided a true left-wing offering (and did it well), that could be a far more effective counter to the divisive politics of Reform UK than Starmer's pragmatism. Especially given Nigel Farage's proposals to lift the two child benefit cap and restore winter fuel payments to all seem to have gone down remarkably well with the British public. But sitting to the right of Rayner is Wes Streeting – also seen as a strong contender to succeed the PM. He's well-liked by the party, as of last month being the third most popular Labour politician among party members – behind Rayner and Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, who is not currently a Labour MP. He's so far proven himself a safe pair of hands when it comes to the health service, and has led one of the few departments that seems to be somewhat successfully implementing the change they promised. While allies of both Streeting and Rayner are attempting to shut down fevered speculation over possible leadership bids, a number of party insiders see the local elections in May next year as the deadline for when a decision would need to be made on the party's future. But there is an important health warning that needs to accompany any talk of replacing Starmer. He won a massive majority. The Tory years, which saw Britain run by three different prime ministers in two months, shouldn't fool anyone into thinking replacing him will be an easy task. The only official way to remove an incumbent leader of the party is for 20 per cent of Labour MPs to nominate a willing candidate to stand against the leader, triggering a leadership contest. With Labour's current majority, that would require at least 80 MPs to get behind a single candidate – no easy task. Therefore, the chance of Starmer being replaced is, at present, small. But the clock is ticking. Voters are currently unconvinced that Labour is anything different from the '14 years of Tory failure' that Starmer so often talks about. Every day that this sentiment is allowed to fester, the likelihood of a coup increases.
