Prime Minister Starmer Cites Affordability for Rejecting Waspi Payouts

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has defended the government’s choice to deny compensation to women affected by modifications to the state pension age. He asserted that the public “simply can’t afford the tens of billions of pounds” required for such payments. Additionally, he stated that “90% of those impacted knew about the changes that were taking place”. Nevertheless, during a session of Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir faced persistent questioning regarding the government’s stance, and an MP proposed a parliamentary vote on the matter. The campaign organization, Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi), contends that 3.6 million women born in the 1950s did not receive adequate notification about the increase in the state pension age, which was implemented to equalize it with that of men. The government raised the pension age for women from 60 to 65 in 1995, with the transition occurring between 2010 and 2020. The coalition government formed in 2010 decided to accelerate this timeline, advancing the qualifying age of 65 to 2018. Waspi states that numerous women impacted had formulated their financial strategies based on the previous state pension age, and some retired without realizing they would be ineligible to claim their pension. The group has advocated for compensation, having previously proposed that some women should be awarded £10,000 each, amounting to a total expenditure of £36bn. The present government’s choice to withhold payments stands in contrast to an independent government review conducted in March, which had advised compensation ranging from £1,000 to £2,950 for each individual impacted. Rebecca Hilsenrath, who leads the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and authored the review, informed Times Radio that while the government acknowledged and apologized for a 28-month delay in notifying women born in the 1950s, it nevertheless declined to provide compensation. She stated, “What we don’t expect is for an acknowledgement to be made by a public body that it’s got it wrong but then refuse to make it right for those affected.” Prior to this year’s general election, numerous prominent Labour figures had supported the campaign, and Sir Keir personally endorsed a commitment for “fair and fast compensation” in 2022. In 2019, Angela Rayner, currently the deputy prime minister, informed the BBC: “They [the government] stole their pensions…we’ve said we’d right that injustice and within the five years of the Labour government we’ll compensate them for the money that they’ve lost.” During the initial Prime Minister’s Questions session following the government’s declaration that it would not offer compensation, veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott remarked that the Waspi women had “fought one of the most sustained and passionate campaigns for justice that I can remember, year in, year out.” She then inquired, “Does the prime minister really understand how let down Waspi women feel today?” Ian Byrne, an independent Member of Parliament, asserted that the women were due recompense for the “injustice done to them” and called upon the prime minister to initiate a vote on the issue. Meanwhile, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour of having “played politics” with the group by previously endorsing their campaign. She stated, “She [Rayner] promised to compensate them in full… now they admit we were right all along.” In response to the critiques, Sir Keir acknowledged that the delays in informing women about pension adjustments were “unacceptable.” He further explained, “I’m afraid to say that taxpayers simply can’t afford the tens of billions of pounds in compensation when the evidence shows that 90% of those impacted did know about it, that’s because of the state of our economy.” Subsequent to Prime Minister’s Questions, a spokesperson for No 10 stated that since securing victory in the election, the government had “had the chance” to review the ombudsman’s report, which concluded that the women “faced no direct financial loss as a result of the delays.” The government has indicated that potential compensation could incur costs of up to £10.5bn. However, Ms De Spon countered that many Waspi women “didn’t know” about the pension changes, noting that women continue to report: “I never even received a letter, let alone when I received a letter.” She further mentioned that former Conservative Chancellor George Osborne had accumulated savings exceeding £180bn by increasing the state pension age and “boasted that it was easiest money he had ever saved.” She concluded, “We’re asking for a tiny fraction of that back as compensation for government failure.” The Waspi campaign additionally charged the prime minister with disseminating “dangerous misinformation” by claiming that 90% of women were cognizant of the adjustments to the pension age. Waspi chair Angela Madden clarified, “The fact that 90% of women had some general awareness of potential changes in the future does not mean they knew this would impact them personally.” Diane Abbott is among a small faction of Labour Members of Parliament who are dissenting from their leader’s stance. Kate Osborne and Emma Lewell-Buck have also voiced public opposition to the decision. The Scottish National Party (SNP) is advocating for a parliamentary vote on the issue of compensation. Stephen Flynn, the party’s Westminster leader, remarked: “Labour Party politicians posed with Waspi women before the election only to leave them high and dry when they got into government.” Previously, Andrew Griffith, the Conservative shadow business secretary, also labeled the decision “a betrayal,” noting that Cabinet ministers had “queued up, had their photo taken with Waspi women, talked about how they were going to remedy that injustice.” He added that “we won’t know” if a Conservative government would have provided compensation, as they were removed from office before reaching that determination. The Department of Work and Pensions, under Conservative leadership at the time, explained to the ombudsman in March, concurrent with its report, why it was unable to disburse payments. It cited “the costs involved, the time it would take, the amount of resource it would involve, and the negative impact delivering a remedy would have on it being able to maintain other services.” The Liberal Democrats had previously commented that the government’s position, by dismissing the ombudsman’s conclusions, “sets an extremely worrying precedent.”