Latest news with #JusticeSwift
Daily Record
23-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Record
State Pension age compensation scheme for millions of WASPI women to be debated next week
An estimated 3.6 million women were financially impacted by the increase to the State Pension age. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has announced there will be a parliamentary debate on a motion over 'financial redress for 1950s women impacted by the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) maladministration of the State Pension ' next week. Bob Blackman confirmed the debate will take place on Thursday, July 3 during the weekly 'Business of the House' session in the Commons last week. The debate will be of keen interest to the WASPI women (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaign who announced on Monday they have secured a vital legal safeguard in their bid for a compensation scheme for an estimated 3.6 million women after the High Court approved a limit on the campaign's liability for DWP defence costs. WASPI is seeking a judicial review to force the UK Government to reconsider its decision to rule out a compensation package for women affected by the way changes to the State Pension age were communicated. The DWP has agreed to a costs capping order, protecting each side in the event they lose. The agreement limits WASPI's liability for UK Government legal costs to £60,000, and caps the UK Government's liability for WASPI's legal costs at £90,000. WASPI has welcomed the breakthrough as a 'major milestone' in their fight to secure a lawful Government response to the Ombudsman's compensation proposals for 1950s-born women. However, campaigners stress the order does not reduce the actual legal costs of the case, which will be much higher. Earlier this month, Mr Justice Swift, a senior High Court judge ruled that the case is 'arguable' and 'ought to be considered at a final hearing', meaning ministers could be ordered to re-think their position on compensation if WASPI wins the argument in court. But arguing the case involves submitting thousands of pages of evidence, and winning key legal arguments on a complex body of case law. The campaign continues to ask supporters to contribute to its legal fighting fund as preparations begin for a full hearing later this year - they must raise enough to cover not only the capped UK Government costs, but those of the legal team fighting the case. The judicial review will examine the Government's rejection of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's (PHSO) recommendations for compensation, ranging between £1,000 and £2,950, despite ministers' acceptance that maladministration had occurred. In December 2024, the UK Government said that, while it accepted the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration and apologised for there being a delay in writing to 1950s-born women, a blanket compensation scheme, which could cost taxpayers up to £10.5 billion, cannot be justified. Angela Madden, Chair of Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), said: 'This agreement - fully approved by the court - is a vital step forward in our legal campaign. 'We now have the certainty we need to press on, but the costs of fighting this case remain very real. Our expert legal team is showing they can and do win victories against the government but it takes time and forensic presentation of our evidence, and that costs money. 'This is the fight of our lives and we can't win it without public support.' Earlier this month, WASPI launched a new interactive tool which shows the UK-wide state of play of MP support for a compensation scheme for women affected by changes to their retirement age. The new analysis shows 179 MPs have publicly blasted the UK Government's decision not to compensate WASPI women in recent months. WASPI said that of these, 56 Labour MPs have openly criticised Downing Street's failure to deliver justice, while dozens more are thought to be supportive behind the scenes, including several senior ministers. The map shows how smaller parties are almost unanimous in their support, with a strong coalition of Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru and DUP MPs backing calls to compensate WASPI women. The smaller parties are almost unanimous in their support, with a strong coalition of Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru and DUP MPs backing calls to compensate WASPI women. Around a dozen Conservative MPs have also recently reaffirmed their support for compensation. The findings come at the launch of WASPI's new website, which has new resources to enable supporters to write to their MP and join the campaign for as little as £15 per year. Some of the strongest advocates for WASPI women include members of the State Pension Inequality for Women APPG, chaired by Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey. The cross-party group of MPs is one of the largest in Parliament and includes representatives from across the major political parties who have vowed to continue the fight for justice. However, WASPI campaigners say 134 MPs previously backed calls for compensation but have failed to reaffirm their support since the Labour Government's announcement in December. The figures do not include serving government ministers or whips, at least 80 of whom have previously pledged their support for the campaign. All MPs' positions on compensation can be found on WASPI's interactive 'state of the nation' map, alongside new campaign resources, here.
The National
06-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
Human rights group loses bid to bring legal action against EHRC
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. READ MORE: This is what the Hamilton by-election tells us about SNP chances for 2026 Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, he said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' READ MORE: Labour considering 'Brit Card' ID plans, minister confirms Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.
