MP likens Government to flat-earthers over refusal to compensate Waspi women
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.'
Waspi campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London (Haixin Tan/PA)
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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Keir Starmer told me he'd met every challenge. But things look bad right now
Will Keir Starmer allow himself to celebrate his first anniversary as prime minister this weekend? Or will he be taking a long, hard look in the mirror and asking himself what went wrong?That is what is in my mind as he greets me in the Terracotta Room on the first floor of 10 Downing Street for a long-planned conversation about his first 12 months in office, this looks surprisingly relaxed, given that his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had been in tears sitting behind him in the Commons just hours earlier. That triggered fevered speculation about how long she would last in the job, moving markets to sell the pound and increase the cost of that is the impression he wants to convey to me as he shares a story about his photo opportunity with Formula One cars parked outside his front door - the most famous door in the is determined that the problems of recent weeks - and boy there's been a long list of those - will not overshadow the achievements he believes deserve just as much attention."We have done some fantastic things," he tells me, "really driven down the waiting lists in the NHS, really done loads of improvements in schools and stuff that we can do for children - whether that's rolling out school uniform projects, whether it's school meals, breakfast clubs, you name it - and also [brought in] a huge amount of investment into the country. And of course we've been busy getting three trade deals."It's clear that, given the chance, his list would go on. And yet, I point out, there is another long list - of things he's recently admitted to getting the last year, he's said hiring Sue Gray - Starmer's former chief of staff who left Downing Street in October - was wrong. He's also held his hands up about plans to end winter fuel payments, about rejecting a national grooming gang inquiry, and cutting benefits for disabled people. That's not even the full list, yet it's quite a number of things that he's admitting to being a prime minister thinks I've rather crudely summarised his personal reflections on what he might have done better. He challenges the idea, which is prevalent in Westminster, that changing your mind represents weakness, or a "humiliating U-turn".Listen: The inside story of Starmer's stormy first yearInDepth: Why Sir Keir's political honeymoon was so short-livedThis is the fourth time we've sat down for an extended and personal conversation for my Political Thinking podcast."You know this from getting to know me," he says. "I'm not one of these ideological thinkers, where ideology dictates what I do. I'm a pragmatist. You can badge these things as U-turns - it's common sense to me."If someone says to me, 'here's some more information and I really think it's the right thing to do', I'm the kind of person that says, 'well in which case, let's do it'."There is, though, no doubt that scrapping so much of his welfare reforms was a U-turn - a costly and humiliating one. Starmer and his chancellor have not only lost authority and face, they've lost £5bn in planned savings, something that will have to be paid for somehow, through extra borrowing, lower spending or, most likely, higher taxes."I take responsibility," he says, "we didn't get the process right". But somehow he implies that it might have been someone other than the leader of the Labour Party's responsibility to persuade Labour MPs to back his plans. He doesn't spell out what he means by getting the process right and, perhaps more importantly, he dodges my attempts to get him to spell out clearly what story he's trying to tell the country about Labour be on the side of disabled people and people like his own mother, who had a crippling disease that meant she eventually had to have a leg amputated? Or should they adopt her unwillingness to be written off, which he described to me the last time we spoke? When told by her doctors that she wouldn't walk again she refused to listen. Wounded by the events of the past week, Starmer refuses to even address that choice. But surely, I suggest to him, the nation doesn't just want a problem-solver, or a chief executive of UK plc? Voters surely want a leader who has a story to tell?Starmer clearly knew this question - or a variation of it - was coming. I've pushed him on it every time we've spoken at length. "It's about a passion, if that's the right word," he says. "But certainly a determination to change the lives of millions of working people and, in particular, to tackle this question of fairness.""It's almost like a social contract," he adds, "that people are getting back what they're putting in, that there is a fairer environment for them that supports them and respects them."That's a bit long to sew on to an election banner, to chant in the streets, or write in a post on X, but it is a theme. He is a self-proclaimed pragmatist who doesn't want there to be something that can be labelled as "Starmerism", but at least we can now say that his guiding principle is fairness. In truth, what matters more than anything else to him is not losing, something he tells me he hates, whether in politics or on the five-a-side pitch playing football regularly with his mates - as he still does and has done for decades.I tell him people think he is losing now - some say he is the most unpopular prime minister since records began. He reacts with the defiance of a man whose football-playing friend recently described him as a "hard bastard". A man who served in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet and then had him thrown out of the party; who stood to be leader on promises to keep much of Corbyn's agenda before tearing up those promises to win power; and someone who hired then fired Sue Gray as his first Downing Street chief of staff. "Every challenge that's been put in front of me I've risen to, met it, and we're going to continue in the same vein," he says.I end our conversation by reminding him what they say about failing football managers who have "lost the dressing room". Has he lost the Labour Party dressing room? His reply is emphatic."Absolutely not," he says. "The Labour dressing room, the PLP, is proud as hell of what we've done, and their frustration - my frustration - is that sometimes the other stuff, welfare would be an example, can obscure us being able to get that out there."Almost as an afterthought he adds: "I'm a hard-enough bastard to find out who it was who said that, so that I can have a discussion with him." Knowing Starmer I suspect he's much more likely to deliver a crunching tackle on the pitch than a quiet word off the prime minister's message is clear to me: Don't count me out, however bad it looks now. To pretty much everyone other than him it currently does look bad. Very bad.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sarwar must take on Labour in Westminster if he is to win Holyrood
Mr Sarwar's pitch to voters at last July's General Election was that Scots should vote Labour to get rid of two governments failing Scotland – the Conservative Government at Westminster, and the SNP Government at Holyrood. That pitch was wildly successful, with Scottish Labour winning 35.3% of the vote and 37 of Scotland's 57 seats. The pitch made by Sir Keir Starmer in the same campaign was premised on the idea that what Britain needed after years of Conservative turmoil was stable, grown-up government. As Rachel Reeves put it, 'stability is the change'. That was the heart of the UK Labour pitch, and in turn it was foundational to Mr Sarwar's: replace Scotland's failing governments, SNP and Conservative, with stable, capable Labour government. Read more by Mark McGeoghegan This week's fiasco over Labour's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill exemplifies where that pitch has fallen apart. Whether one agrees with the bill itself, how it was handled by Number 10, and by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, was the height of political malpractice. A bill infused with cuts to PIP that anyone familiar with the Labour Party knew would be unacceptable to dozens of Labour MPs (in the end, over 130 signed a reasoned amendment against the Bill). A Whip's Office that seemed unable to keep track of where the Parliamentary Labour Party was on the vote. A political office in Number 10 incapable of carrying Labour MPs with it. A compromise on cuts to PIP that simply created a new, potentially more toxic problem of a two-tier disability benefits system. More compromises agreed while Liz Kendall stood at the dispatch box, arguing for MPs to back a bill being gutted in backroom deals as she spoke, to the confusion of MPs in the chamber. This absolute clusterbùrach exemplifies the issues Labour have faced since coming to office last year, from the infighting that led to Sue Gray being ousted to policy U-turns on the Winter Fuel Allowance and a national grooming gangs inquiry. If stability was the change being promised by Labour, it has not delivered. It isn't unreasonable for Scottish voters to look at the Labour Government in London, which Mr Sarwar told them would restore stability and good governance to Westminster and conclude that they have no reason to believe, based on the evidence, that that is what Labour would deliver in Edinburgh. And that's the conclusion they seem to have reached. An Ipsos poll released earlier this week found that Scots' net satisfaction with Sir Keir has fallen from -12 a year ago to -42 today, and their net satisfaction with Mr Sarwar has fallen from -1 to -18. Net satisfaction with John Swinney has also fallen, from -2 to -17, but the 32% of Scots satisfied with his performance as First Minister seems enough to put him in pole position to remain in Bute House after next May. More problematically for Labour, the SNP is more trusted than it is on the top issues that voters say will determine how they vote next May, from healthcare to the economy, and enjoys a 25-point lead over Labour on being most trusted to stand up for Scotland's interests. Part of the difficulty for Mr Sarwar is that it is exceptionally challenging for Scottish leaders of GB-wide parties to distance themselves from their Westminster counterparts, for a variety of reasons. But he also hasn't attempted to. When he backed Sir Keir's immigration policy and accepted that immigration had to come down 'across the board', he upturned decades of Scottish Labour policy. He tied himself closer to the Starmer project. When he refuses to criticise or explicitly backs UK Labour policies, then claims that he would do differently as First Minister, as he did on disability benefits, it's not hard to understand why he might be met with incredulity. Asking a question at a Holyrood Sources event a couple of weeks ago, Cat Headley put it to Professor Sir John Curtice that there's a fundamental unfairness in holding up Labour's year in power at Westminster, cleaning up a mess of the Conservatives' making, against the SNP's nearly two decades in power in Edinburgh as if they are equivalents. Liz Kendall has performed woefully of late (Image: PA) I have some sympathy with that view. Ultimately, voters are electing a Scottish government next May, not voting in a referendum on Labour's performance in London. In principle, it's right that it's the SNP's record in government that is the focus of that campaign and media scrutiny of our politics. And perhaps that shift will happen. After all, in December 2010, while Scottish voters were still focused on Westminster political news, Labour led the SNP by 49% to 33% at Holyrood. It wasn't until the campaign began in earnest that attention shifted, as did the polls. But in the end, if Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour don't want to be judged by Labour's record at Westminster, they have the option of distancing themselves from that government. Just a third of their own voters last July trust them most to stand up for Scotland's interests, while a fifth trust the SNP to do so the most. Mr Sarwar could still find himself sitting behind that desk in Bute House a year from now. That likely means clawing back the SNP-Labour swing voters that delivered dozens of Scottish Labour MPs last year, and that starts with Mr Sarwar making the politically tricky decision to critique his colleagues at Westminster. Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Transformation of Wrexham-Liverpool rail line to begin
Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales Ken Skates and Secretary of State for Wales Jo Stevens visited the site on Thursday, (July 3) to see the planned upgrades. (Image: Newsquest) The UK Government committed to supporting the work at Padeswood as part of last month's Comprehensive Spending Review. The overall UK Government investment in Welsh rail, worth at least £445 million, will see people across Wales benefit from better access to jobs and opportunities as a result of improved infrastructure and more frequent services. The work will see a major component of the Network North Wales vision delivered within three years, resulting in two trains an hour operating along the line. Padeswood also serves the Heidelberg cement works, and the upgrade will make it easier for freight to enter and exit the site. (Image: Newsquest) Ken Skates, cabinet secretary for Transport and North Wales said: 'Delivering the upgrade at Padeswood will bring real economic benefits, helping the cement works and improving connectivity between Wrexham and Liverpool, increasing services to two trains per hour. 'It was fantastic to hear the UK Government's commitment to this project, which campaigners have pushed for over many decades. Two governments, working in partnership, will deliver this key part of the Network North Wales. 'Network North Wales is about delivering an integrated, high-frequency public transport network, connecting people to jobs, opportunity, community and a better quality of life." Jo Stevens, Secretary of State for Wales said: "The UK Government is investing in Wales' future and unleashing our country's economic potential. (Image: Newsquest) MORE NEWS: "We promised we would deal with the historical under-investment in Wales' rail network and announcing at least £445 million in the Spending Review delivered on that pledge. 'Working alongside Welsh Government it will mean brand-new stations, upgrades on the line in places like Padeswood and more and faster trains on the key lines across North and South Wales, connecting people with jobs and helping to grow the economy.' Work will now take place on the design of the scheme ahead of implementation.
