WASPI women left without compensation as Labour's Liz Kendall confirms government stance

Sir Keir Starmer has come under fire for allegedly treating pensioners as "second class citizens" after the government's controversial decision to deny compensation to millions of WASPI women. Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall today confirmed that most of the 3.6 million women born in the 1950s, who were not properly informed about the state pension age increase, would not receive payments.

This decision has caused a stir across political lines and follows Labour's previous action to remove the winter fuel payment from up to 10 million pensioners.

Dennis Reed, director of the over 60s campaign group Silver Voices, expressed his dismay: "This despicable decision slipped out just before Christmas proves that the scrapping of the winter fuel payment was not a one-off and pensioners are officially second class citizens under the Labour Government. Unless we fight back there appears to be no limit to the depths the Government will stoop to to make savings off the backs of poor pensioners."

He also noted, "The Government has committed vast sums, quite rightly, to settle long-running cases such as the sub-postmasters and blood contamination scandals, but it appears older people can just be stepped over and forgotten."

Reed continued to highlight the plight of those affected: "Despite the vibrant campaigning of the Waspi and 1950s women, and their own ombudsman recommending compensation, millions of women who lived in poverty because of Government mistakes have had their hopes shattered. I hope 1950s women will now work with us in a political campaign to stop this abhorrent targeting of older people.", reports the Express.

The parliamentary ombudsman had suggested in March that those affected should receive compensation ranging from £1,000 to £2,950. However, the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign had advocated for payments of at least £10,000 each.

Angela Madden, chair of the campaign group, stated that they would consider taking fresh legal action. She expressed: "The government has today made an unprecedented political choice to ignore the clear recommendations of an independent watchdog."

"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."

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn described Ms Kendall's rejection of any compensation as "beyond disappointing".

He added: "First, the government cuts winter fuel. Now this? Whose side is the government on? " "WASPI women have been disgracefully cheated out of their pensions - and they deserve justice."

Labour MP Brian Leishman expressed being "appalled" at the decision not to provide financial compensation to the Waspi women. Rupert Lowe MP stated: "Labour have betrayed our pensioners time after time since entering office."

"Instead of prioritising British pensioners they've decided to send billions abroad for net zero. Starmer has his priorities all wrong and it's hurting the eldest in our society."

Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine described the decision as "another mistake that will erode pensioners' trust in this Government".

MPs have condemned the decision, with Liberal Democrat pensions spokesman Steve Darling describing it as a "day of shame" and independent MP Rosie Duffield calling it a "kick in the teeth", stating that Parliament has failed Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) women. Although the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) can recommend compensation, it lacks the authority to enforce it.

The Government acknowledged the watchdog's finding of maladministration and apologised for the 28-month delay in notifying 1950s-born women. However, it argued that evidence suggests only one in four people recall receiving and reading unexpected letters, and that most 1950s-born women were aware of the changes to the state pension age.

The Government has ruled out a blanket compensation scheme, which could cost taxpayers up to £10.5 billion, citing that it cannot be justified. Additionally, it stated that implementing a tailored compensation scheme that accounts for individual circumstances while being fair, cost-effective, and feasible would be impossible.

In a statement, Ms Kendall explained: "These two facts: that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters aren't as significant as the Ombudsman says, as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women, in response to the Ombudsman's report."

She elaborated: "The alternative put forward in the report is for a flat rate compensation scheme, at level four of the Ombudsman's scale of injustice, this would provide £1,000 to £2,950 per person at a total cost of between £3.5 billion and 10.5 billion."

"Given the vast majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, the Government does not believe paying a flat rate to all women at a cost of up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers' money."

Ms Kendall, who faced shouts of "shame" in the Commons, expressed that she found it a tough decision but ultimately "the right and fair one". Previously, Ms Kendall has been seen supporting campaigners at a Parliamentary event, holding a sign that read: "I will work with Waspi to identify and deliver a fair solution for all women affected."

The Prime Minister, too, had shown support by posing with a WASPI sign during his time in opposition.

He acknowledged the concerns of the Waspi women but emphasised the need to safeguard taxpayer interests. When questioned about understanding the anger of those impacted, the Prime Minister told reporters: "I do understand their concerns. The ombudsman's findings were clear in relation to maladministration, but also clear about the lack of direct financial injustice, as the ombudsman saw it."

"That's why we've taken the decision that we've taken."

"But I do understand, of course, the concern of the Waspi women. But also I have to take into account whether it's right at the moment to impose a further burden on the taxpayer, which is what it would be."