Sir Keir Starmer’s Government has been likened to flat-earthers by one of its own MPs, over its refusal to compensate women affected by state pension age changes.
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.”
