Waspi women have been shamelessly betrayed by Labour

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

As a Waspi woman, I am tired of the changes to our pensions being muddled by press and politicians (“Waspi women’s fury as Starmer says they knew about pension change”, Wednesday 18 December).

The changes to women’s pensions were phased in. The first change, based on a report published in 1995, was made gradually over a decade, depending on the recipient’s birthday.

However, no one was formally told of this for 14 years.

I received a letter in 2010, telling me that rather than receiving my pension on my 60th birthday, in 2013, it would be deferred by three or so years. Anyone born in 1951 would have had only a year’s notice of the change, if they received a letter at all.

I perfectly understood the need to give women parity with men, as many more women were in work than when the system was originally set up.

What took me and most of my friends by surprise was a second tranche of changes, which did away with the step changes, and just pushed everyone’s retirement date to their 65th birthday. I received no formal notification of this – it was hidden in a Budget statement.

I had already decided to retire, in part to care for an elderly relative, and my position in my organisation was rationalised out of existence.

If I hadn’t been in receipt of an occupational pension, I don’t know what I would have done.

The job market is never ready to accept older women, forcing them to take lower-paid work and contracts without advantages. To qualify for jobseekers’ allowance, humiliating tests have to be met. Single, divorced or widowed women often have no other source of income. Others, like myself, have to rely on their partners.

This mess was created by previous Conservative administrations, whose anxiety to cut expenditure wiped out any compassion. It is a shame successive administrations have kicked this ball down the road so that the new Labour government – which had promised to pay the compensation suggested by the ombudsman – has now made the decision not to pay up.

It’s the latest blow to pensioners from this administration – and not a good look.

Anne Robson

Wiltshire

Waspi women have proven their worth

The Labour government says the taxpayer cannot afford to compensate Waspi women for state pension changes (“Rachel Reeves says compensation for Waspi women would not be fair to taxpayers”, Wednesday 18 December).

Yet the taxpayer has already benefited hugely from the efforts of Waspi women.

A high proportion of Waspi women either didn’t do paid work, or worked part time for many years in order to do unpaid childcare/elderly care – as was expected of our generation.

It means that the occupational pensions of many Waspi women are low. Without compensation for the state pension changes, we are ever poorer.

Rosie Murray

Malvern, Worcestershire

Another broken promise, Wes?

John Rentoul notes Labour’s growing reputation for making promises during the election then doing the opposite in government (“Labour’s betrayal of Waspi women is a sign its problems now go far beyond pensioners”, Wednesday 18 December).

During the campaign, the health secretary Wes Streeting said one of his first acts in post would be to roll out fracture liaison services (FLS) for people with osteoporosis.

He promised that every trust would offer early diagnosis services by 2030, to help patients live free from the threat of debilitating fractures, the like of which I have had to endure myself.

But as soon as Labour won, the target was diluted from “FLS will be universal by 2030” to “we’ll expand access to FLS”. And, six months on, we’ve been given no sense that any rollout plan is imminent.

As a person living with osteoporosis, I asked Mr Streeting about this in September, at a public event at the Labour Party conference. Our hearts were lifted when he said: “We made the promise, we’re keeping the promise.”

But, as he gets ready to publish his NHS priorities for 2025, we need proof that this cause isn’t joining all the others that have been sidelined.

Annette Browne

Edgbaston, Birmingham

A shameful idea

Laura Bates’s excellent piece on Gisèle Pelicot’s courage (“Trump? No, Pelicot has to be the Person of the Year”, Thursday 19 December) makes a very poignant point that Gisèle insisted that shame must “change sides”.

I hope that relatives of the 51 men convicted of rape don’t now hide because of shame by association. Rather, they must have the courage to help fight misogyny in France.

Kartar Uppal

Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Why ban first-cousin marriage but not alcohol?

I write in response to the recent debate regarding MP Richard Holden’s proposal to ban cousin marriages, citing health risks associated with consanguinity (“MP speaks out in Parliament against ban on marrying cousins”, Tuesday 10 December).

Particularly in Bradford, which has a significant Pakistani Muslim community, concerns about consanguinity were highlighted in a 2019 report indicating that it contributes to child abnormalities. Yet it neglected to mention that the risk from cousin marriages is comparable to that of advanced maternal age.

Consanguinity, practised by up to 10 per cent of the global population, is deeply entrenched in cultural and historical traditions. Risks of birth defects are more significantly influenced by unhealthy lifestyles, and very costly to the NHS. Yet no outright bans exist on smoking or alcohol consumption, which are harmful to reproductive outcomes.

Dr Amtul Bhunnoo

Roehampton, London