Sir Keir Starmer has been slammed for treating pensioners as “second class citizens” following the government’s “shameful” decision to refuse millions of WASPI women compensation.

Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed today that ministers would deny payments to most of the 3.6 million women born in the 1950s who were not properly informed of the rise in state pension age.

The move, which has sparked outrage across political divides, came months after Labour stripped up to 10 million pensioners of the winter fuel lifeline.

Dennis Reed, director of over 60s campaign group Silver Voices, said: “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.

“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.

“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.”

The parliamentary ombudsman recommended in March compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 to each of those affected.

But the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign had called for payments of at least £10,000 each.

Angela Madden, who chairs the campaign group, said the group would be considering fresh legal action.

She added: “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 called 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 said he was “appalled” at the decision to not provide financial compens ation to the Waspi women.

Rupert Lowe MP said: “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 said the decision is “another mistake that will erode pensioners’ trust in this Government”.

Her Party’s pensions spokesman Steve Darling called it a “day of shame” while independent MP Rosie Duffield called it a “kick in the teeth”, adding that Parliament has failed WASPI women.

While the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) could recommend compensation, it could not enforce it.

The Government said it has accepted the watchdog’s finding of maladministration and has apologised for there being a 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women.

But it said evidence showed only one in four people remember receiving and reading letters that they were not expecting and that the great majority of 1950s-born women did know that the state pension age was changing.

The Government said a blanket compensation scheme, which could cost taxpayers up to £10.5 billion, cannot be justified.

It would also be impossible to deliver a tailored compensation scheme taking into account individual circumstances that is fair, value for money and feasible, it added.

In a statement, Ms Kendall said: “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 added: “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 was targeted with shout of “shame” in the Commons, told how she believed this was a difficult decision but “the right and fair one”.

Ms Kendall has previously been pictured with campaigners at a Parliamentary event holding up a sign saying: “I will work with Waspi to identify and deliver a fair solution for all women affected.”

Most Popular Comments

“She insisted that WASPI women “suffered no direct financial loss” and adds there was “considerable awareness” of changes to state pension age.’ …” 38

“Liz Kendall, born in 1971, has no idea how women were treated at work in the late …” 32

“I believe that the women affected by this probably new about the increase to the …” 28

JOIN THE DEBATE

The Prime Minister had also posed with a WASPI sign while in opposition.

He said he understood the concerns of the Waspi women but the Government had to protect the taxpayer.

Asked if he understood the anger of those affected, the Prime Minister told broadcasters: “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.”