Connect with us

Published

on

The Labour government is facing backlash after refusing to pay compensation to women who were affected by the rise in state pension age.

The recommendation was put forward by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) after the campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) said millions of women suffered financially as they were not given sufficient warning to prepare for the later retirement age.

Politics live: Follow latest updates

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Tuesday he understood the concerns of Waspi women, but their demands were not affordable.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

No pay out for ‘waspi’ pension women

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall issued an apology for a 28-month delay in sending out letters to those born in the 1950s impacted by state pension changes, but said she does not believe paying a flat rate to women at a cost of up to £10.5bn would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.

There were shouts of “shame” when Ms Kendall made the announcement in the Commons, with the government also facing a barrage of criticism from MPs, some of which from within the Labour Party.

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall speaking to the media outside the Department for Work and Pensions in Westminster, London, after she announced that women affected by changes to the state pension age will not receive compensation.
Pic: PA
Image:
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall. Pic: PA

Who are the Waspi women?

In the mid-1990s, the government passed a law to raise the retirement age for women over a 10-year period to make it equal to men.

The coalition government under David Cameron and Nick Clegg then sped up the timetable as part of its cost-cutting measures.

In 2011, a new Pensions Act was introduced that not only shortened the timetable to increase the women’s pension age to 65 by two years but also raised the overall pension age to 66 by October 2020 – saving the government around £30bn.

Major/Rifkind Bosnia n/c
Image:
John Major introduced legislation to even out the pension age in 1995. Pic: PA

Many women complained they weren’t appropriately notified of the changes by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) back in 1995, with some only receiving letters about it 14 years after the legislation passed.

Others claimed to only have received a notification the year before they had been expecting to retire, aged 60, while more said they never received any communication from the department at all.

The new British Prime Minister David Cameron (left) with the new Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on the steps of 10 Downing Street in central London, before getting down to the business of running the country.
Image:
David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s coalition focused on saving cash. Pic: PA

Come 2015 a group of women impacted by the situation – namely those born in the 1950s – set up the Waspi campaign.

The group took no issue with plans to equalise the pension age, but they claimed millions of women had suffered financially because of the lack of time they had to plan their retirements.

By October 2018, Waspi had secured a full-scale inquiry into the actions of the DWP by the PHSO.

WASPI women have campaigned over changes to the state pension since 2015. Pic: PA
Image:
Waspi women have campaigned over changes to the state pension since 2015. Pic: PA

It took five years for them to carry out their work, but when they released their report in March 2024, it was damning.

The PHSO said thousands of women might have been impacted by the DWP’s “failure to adequately inform them” about the change to their state pension age, and they ruled compensation was “owed”.

The report suggested the compensation figure per person – based on the sample cases its authors have seen – should fall between £1,000 and £2,950.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

At the time, the ombudsman’s chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, said she had “significant concerns” the DWP will not act on its findings and its recommendations – which are not legally binding – so PHSO had “proactively asked parliament to intervene and hold the department to account”.

‘A day of shame’

Speaking to Ali Fortescue on Sky News’ Politics Hub, Waspi campaigner, Frances Neil, said that group members have been left “angry” and “devastated” by the government’s decision.

“We are taxpayers,” Ms Neil said. “We’ve earned our pensions.”

She said, in combination with the cut to the winter fuel allowance, it’s been a “tough” few months for older people under Labour.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Waspi campaigner ‘devastated’

Ms Neil called on the MPs – of which she says there are 350 – who’ve supported the campaign to “step up and fight for us”.

Angela Madden, chairwoman of Waspi, added: “The government has today made an unprecedented political choice to ignore the clear recommendations of an independent watchdog which ordered ministers urgently to compensate Waspi women nine months ago.

“This is a bizarre and totally unjustified move which will leave everyone asking what the point of an ombudsman is if ministers can simply ignore their decisions.”

Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaigners stage a protest on College Green in Westminster, London, as Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivers her Budget in the Houses of Parliament. Picture date: Wednesday October 30, 2024.
Image:
Pic: PA

The Liberal Democrats also criticised the decision, calling it a “day of great shame”.

Steve Darling, Lib Dem work and pensions spokesman, said: “The new government has turned its back on millions of pension-age women who were wronged through no fault of their own, ignoring the independent Ombudsman’s recommendations, and that is frankly disgraceful.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Welfare concessions ‘common sense’, says PM – as he defends U-turn

Published

on

By

Welfare concessions 'common sense', says PM - as he defends U-turn

Sir Keir Starmer said changes to his welfare bill “strike the right balance” after making concessions to his backbench MPs.

The prime minister described the U-turn as “common sense” and said it means “we can now get on with the job”.

Politics Live: Starmer defends U-turn

Sir Keir faced a significant rebellion over plans to cut sickness and disability benefits as part of a package he said would shave £5bn off the welfare bill and get more people into work.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, he stood by his position that the welfare system needs reform as “it doesn’t work, and it traps people”.

He added: “We need to get it right. That’s why we’ve been talking to colleagues and having a constructive discussion.

“We’ve now arrived at a package that delivers on the principles with some adjustments, and that’s the right reform, and I’m really pleased now that we’re able to take this forward.

“For me, getting that package adjusted in that way is the right thing to do, it means it’s the right balance, it’s common sense that we can now get on with it.”

The concessions include exempting existing Personal Independence Payment claimants (PIP) from the stricter new criteria, while the universal credit health top-up will only be cut and frozen for new applications.

Analysis: Welfare bill U-turn a humiliating blow for Starmer

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

“No leadership” in Labour says MP

More money will also be front-loaded into helping people find jobs, though it is not clear how much beyond the £1bn already announced.

The changes came after 127 Labour MPs signed an amendment calling for the cuts to be delayed and consulted on with disabled people.

Rebels feared the reforms wouldn’t actually help people find work while pushing thousands of disabled people and children into poverty, as per the government’s own impact assessment.

The discontent threatened to derail the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill when it comes before the Commons for a vote on Tuesday, on the week that marks a year of Starmer in government.

Asked what he would do about a “hole” in the public finances that the changes are said to leave, Sir Keir said the funding will be set out in the autumn budget “in the usual way”.

The concessions on PIP alone will protect an estimated 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment.

Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation have both suggested that the changes could reduce savings intended in the original package by up to £3bn.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is also under pressure to find money to pay for the U-turn on cuts to winter fuel, which followed a drubbing at the local elections in May.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘This week is going to haunt the prime minister,’ says Sky’s Ali Fortescue .

Asked about the series of U-turns, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall earlier said: “Sometimes there’s strength in listening.

“I really believe that to be the case, that you end up in the right position when you talk to all of those with knowledge and experience and actually, if you want decisions to be the right ones and to last for generations to come, I believe that’s how you make the right changes.”

However, she would not guarantee the bill will pass next week.

Some 83 Labour MPs would need to rebel for the government to be defeated.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Govt makes offer to rebels on welfare reforms

Last night Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, hailed the concessions as “massive changes” to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms.

However, not all the rebels have been satisfied with the changes, with several suggesting they would create a “two-tier system”. Sky News is aware of at least 20 MPs who currently intend to still vote against. Many others are undecided.

The concessions came after Downing Street publicly stuck to its guns while engaging in a frantic ring-around to get rebels onside, which further angered MPs.

Many have called for a reset in relations with Downing Street, as the fallout from the rebellion threatens to cause lasting damage.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the U-turn, saying the government’s failure to make “minor savings” on welfare showed they were unable to deal with major issues.

Continue Reading

Politics

Welfare bill a humiliating blow for Starmer, and the fallout will be felt way beyond this week

Published

on

By

Welfare bill a humiliating blow for Starmer, and the fallout will be felt way beyond this week

First there was stonewalling, then the private complaints from MPs before a very public outburst that saw an eye-watering 127 MPs tell their prime minister they were going to defy him on a welfare vote.

Now, the inevitable climbdown has arrived, with Downing Street making a significant offer to rebels last night on their planned cuts to disability benefits.

A government with a massive 165-strong working majority had an awakening on Thursday to the importance of parliament as it embarked on a humiliating climbdown after the private warnings of MPs to Downing Street fell on deaf ears.

It’s worth taking a beat to reflect on the enormity of this moment. Less than a year ago, the prime minister was walking into Number 10 having won a landslide, with a Labour majority not seen since the Blair era.

That he has been forced to retreat by angry foot soldiers so early in this premiership, despite having such a big majority, is simply unprecedented. No government has lost a vote at second reading – this basically the general principles of a bill – since 1986 (Thatcher’s shops bill) and that was the only occasion a government with a working majority lost a bill at the second reading in the entire 20th century.

It is obviously a humiliating blow to the authority of the prime minister from a parliamentary party that has felt ignored by Downing Street. And while Number 10 has finally moved – and quickly – to try to shut down the rebellion, the fallout is going to be felt long beyond this week.

Before we get into the problems for Starmer, I would like to acknowledge the predicament he’s in.

More on Sir Keir Starmer

Over the past 10 days, I have followed him to the G7 in Canada, where the Iran-Israel crisis, US-UK trade deal and Ukraine war were on the agenda, to Chequers at the weekend as he tried to deal with the US attack on Iran and all the risk it carried, and to the NATO summit this week in the Netherlands.

He could be forgiven for being furious with his operation for failing to contain the crisis when all his attention was on grave international matters.

He landed back in Westminster from the NATO summit on Wednesday night into a domestic battle that he really didn’t need but moved quickly to contain, signing off a plan that had been worked up this week in Downing Street to try to see off this rebellion.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

What will the changes be?

The government has offered significant concessions to Labour rebels.

People who currently receive the personal independence payment (PIP) will continue to do so, as will recipients of the health element of universal credit.

Planned cuts will only hit future claimants.

The change in PIP payments will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out following reassessment.

One senior parliamentary source told me on Thursday night they thought it was a “good package” with “generous concessions”, but said it was up to individual MPs to decide whether to withdraw their names from the amendment that would have torpedoed the welfare bill.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Govt makes offer to rebels on welfare reforms

In the coming days, Number 10 will have to make the case to backbenchers and whittle down the rebellion in order to get the welfare bill passed on Tuesday. But it’s clear Number 10 has given MPs a ladder to climb down.

But the bigger question is, where does it leave the government and its party?

There is quiet fury from many MPs I have spoken to, angry at the Number 10 operation and critical of what they see as a “boy’s club”.

There has been criticism levelled at the PM’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, with MPs in seats facing challenge from the left rather than the right frustrated that the whole Number 10 strategy seems to be seeing off Reform, rather than look to the broader Labour base and threats from the Lib Dems or the Greens.

There is also much ire reserved for Rachel Reeves – interestingly Liz Kendall is escaping the criticism despite being the architect of the reforms – with MPs, already angry over winter fuel debacle, now in open revolt over the chancellor’s decision to force through these cuts ahead of the Spring Statement in March in order to help fill her fiscal black hole.

MPs felt talked down to

One Labour figure told me on Thursday the growing drumbeat in the party is that Reeves must go.

Another MP told me colleagues hated the cabinet ring around to try to persuade them to back down over welfare, saying more MPs ended up adding their names to the list because they felt talked down to.

Read more:
Rayner refuses to repeat chancellor’s tax hikes pledge
New plans to deport foreign prisoners earlier

All of this needs work if the PM has any hope of rebuilding trust between his party and his operation.

There is also the problem of what flows from the concessions.

The chancellor will have to fund these concessions, and that could mean hard choices elsewhere. Will this mean that the government ends up doing less on reforming the two-child cap, or will it have to find welfare cuts elsewhere?

That flows into the third problem. In seeing off this rebellion, Number 10 has contained MPs rather than converting them.

What the parliamentary party has seen is a government that, when pressed, be it on winter fuel or benefit cuts, will fold.

That will only serve to embolden MPs to fight again. In the immediate term, the government will hope it has seen off a potentially catastrophic defeat.

But seeing off the growing malaise around the Starmer administration just got a bit harder after this.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Sometimes there is strength in listening’: Liz Kendall defends welfare U-turn

Published

on

By

'Sometimes there is strength in listening': Liz Kendall defends welfare U-turn

Liz Kendall has defended the government’s welfare U-turn saying: “Sometimes there is strength in listening.”

The embattled work and pensions secretary said “positive changes” have come about as a result of crisis talks with senior Labour backbenchers, who were poised to vote against planned cuts to disability benefits next week.

Politics latest: Welfare changes ‘could cost £3.2bn per year by 2030’

However, she would not guarantee the bill will pass, amid criticism from some MPs the changes don’t go far enough.

The welfare concessions follow a U-turn over cuts to winter fuel and the decision to launch a grooming inquiry.

Asked how the government can be trusted, Ms Kendall said: “Sometimes there’s strength in listening.

“I really believe that to be the case, that you end up in the right position when you talk to all of those with knowledge and experience and actually, if you want decisions to be the right ones and to last for generations to come, I believe that’s how you make the right changes.”

The concessions include exempting existing personal independence claimants (pip) from the stricter new criteria, while the universal credit health top-up will only be cut and frozen for new applications.

This has led to criticism of a two-tier system, but Ms Kendall said it is “very common in the welfare system that there are protections for existing claimants”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

“No leadership” in Labour says Tory MP

She said she “hopes” the changes have done enough to get the bill over the line next week.

The cabinet minister also said government had “more to do” and would “talk to people over the coming days”, with many MPs still on the fence about whether they will back the new proposals.

The concessions were hashed out last night after a frantic ring around of MPs earlier in the week failed to bring critics onside.

The government had planned to tighten pip criteria for new and existing claimants, with some 370,000 people set to lose out.

It was part of a package of measures aimed at shaving £5bn off the welfare bill by 2030 and getting more people into work amid record levels of economic inactivity.

However, MPs were concerned that disabled people had not been consulted, while the government’s own impact assessment said the changes could plunge 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare reforms ‘Step in the right direction’

Ministers insisted this would be offset by measures to get people back into work, but many rebel MPs said while they agreed with that in principle it wasn’t clear how this will be achieved.

By Thursday, 127 Labour MPs had backed an amendment calling for the changes to be paused for further consultation – meaning the bill was at risk of being defeated when it goes to a vote on Tuesday.

Dame Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury select committee who had tabled the amendment, said last night that the government had offered a “good deal”.

Read more:
Beth Rigby analysis: Welfare bill a humiliating blow for Starmer
What are the concessions to the welfare bill – and will MPs back it?

Ultimately, individual MPs will decide if they want to support it.

Many MPs on the left of the party have said they won’t, with the likes of Ian Byrne and Nadia Whittome saying no concessions are enough while cuts are still going ahead and the bill should be pulled.

Others have told Sky News they are undecided and want to see more details first.

None of the rebels have publicly said they will now support the government, but two have told Sky News they expect they will vote for the new measures.

It’s not clear how much the new package will save, with those details expected to by set out in the autumn budget.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said on Friday that the changes will be fully funded but refused to be drawn on whether that meant tax rises.

He rejected the suggestion that Sir Keir is at the mercy of his backbenchers, saying he has “listened to MPs who support principles but worried about pace of change”.

Continue Reading

Trending